The left wing: Why are so many feminists still bothering with them?

[RowlingsArmy]

I have been following these boards, and in particular the GC issue for a while now.

I live in a working-class Labour stronghold, but I consider myself to be politically homeless as no left wing parties support women, and I disagree with most of the policies of the right.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of gender critical people are still holding onto Labour/ Lib Dems/ The Greens. I am really confused as to why this is?

These parties have made it crystal clear that they don't want us. All of these parties have expelled women that have expressed gender critical/ pro-women viewpoints.

Why would you stay somewhere where you're not welcome?

I think capitalism is ideologically fairly neutral.

Indeed. Capitalism is neutral to human suffering, accepting it whenever a profit can be made. I sure wonder if you can give just one example of a capitalist country that does not viciously exploit the lowest strata of society, inside and beyond its borders.

slavery thrives under capitalism
Slavery has been a feature of nearly every human society throughout the whole of history. I don't disagree that there are still issues with human trafficking even in the UK. But they are operating outside the law - they have to, because we abolished slavery, and criminalised slavery, and people who try to trade in humans here are subject to criminal prosecution. So I'd say I think we're going in the right direction and doing way better than virtually any civilisation to date in this regard.

No worries if you have to go, though! I have to go in a minute myself.

But they are operating outside the law - they have to, because we abolished slavery, and criminalised slavery, and people who try to trade in humans here are subject to criminal prosecution.

Funny enough, this capitalist country by its nature creates the deprivation that forces women into prostitution (some have posted on this board). In capitalism, of course, where a human body is just viewed as capital to be used and invested, this desperate measure is rebranded as 'choice'.

Capitalism is neutral to human suffering, accepting it whenever a profit can be made

Yeah I think that's right - it's neutral so it has to be regulated by a political and legal system that isn't neutral to things like suffering. I don't think it's inevitable that capitalist societies will viciously exploit people and it's clear that many countries have made great progress in terms of human rights. Maybe that's despite capitalism - I think that's a possibility. But no countries have made progress towards human rights and freedoms under communism - the opposite, in fact.

I don't think communism is equally neutral. Something inherent to communism leads its adherents towards destruction of human life. Every single time it's tried, that's where it ends up.

this capitalist country by its nature creates the deprivation that forces women into prostitution

I'm pretty sure that prostitution (and the exploitation of women in general) has existed in every society, including pre-capitalist, and communist, societies.

@deepwatersolo

Well, for women who are working class, class based oppression may be the more pressing issue than sex based oppression, and from that perspective I truly can't see how the Tories or Libdems or UKIP would do anything for them but sh*t on them. So...

I think any analysis of structural disadvantage in the west which prioritises ethnicity, sexuality or sex but ignores money and power is completely worthless.

I don't think communism is equally neutral. Something inherent to communism leads its adherents towards destruction of human life. Every single time it's tried, that's where it ends up.

You willfully ignore that communism is an inherent trait of many indigenous tribes. Last time I checked, they were uprooted by capitalism - you know the force that cuts down their Amazon forest and drowns their islands courtesy capitalism induced global warming.
And I am genuinely not sure that Cuba is more destructive to human life than any country the West has on offer...

I'm pretty sure that prostitution (and the exploitation of women in general) has existed in every society, including pre-capitalist, and communist, societies.

The point is: in societies where there is communal housing and food is provided for by the state, at least a woman is not forced into prostitution to survive.

On this board women have posted who said their social aid had been 'reformed' (=cut and delayed) and cited this as the reason for why they had resorted to prostitution, to not lose the roof over their head. I am sure in Eastern Germany women prostituted themselves, too, but they sure as hell did not do it to keep a roof over their head or to avoid starvation.

You willfully ignore that communism is an inherent trait of many indigenous tribes.
I'm not wilfully ignoring anything. That's news to me. (And I suspect that there's a bit of concept creep going on here. I doubt very much that these tribes are followers of Marx or Lenin or indeed think of themselves as 'communists'.)

I think any analysis of structural disadvantage in the west which prioritises ethnicity, sexuality or sex but ignores money and power is completely worthless.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I doubt very much that these tribes are followers of Marx or Lenin or indeed think of themselves as 'communists'.

Communism existed well before Marx or Lenin. I will reiterate: Communism and Capitalism signify systems of ownership. And communalized property wasn't invented by Marx ffs.

@BovaryX

Firstly, this has never happened in any communist regime. Secondly, I think this is a great example of how leftists ignore or downplay the atrocities of communism. It's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - oh, that's not real communism. Real communism gives everyone what they need. Etc

queen
Absolutely true. Every single time.

Absolutely true. No matter how many failed real life examples you can cite the response from Communist apologists will always be that it wasn't true Communism.

I am sure in Eastern Germany women prostituted themselves, too, but they sure as hell did not do it to keep a roof over their head or to avoid starvation.

I think you should check your history because people certainly did starve in East Germany and many lived in horrendous poverty, not to mention without basic rights to privacy and freedoms.

In the Soviet Union literally millions of people starved to death. This is on top of the death camps and other institutionalised horrors, by the way.

Mao was also responsible for a famine, in which between 35 - 45 MILLION people died.

Because the driving forces behind feminism Are aligned with those of socialism, or anti capitalism and anti establishment, imho.

No matter how many failed real life examples you can cite the response from Communist apologists will always be that it wasn't true Communism.

Yep. I struggle to understand this. I will admit that in my youth I too thought myself a communist and I just pretty much ignored all the people going WTF at me. But then I actually looked at some history and thought about it and realised that calling myself a communist was as morally repulsive as calling myself a fascist, and in reality I was neither. It's just that communism sounded so cool and wonderful - from each according to their abilities to each according to their need - I thought, what a wonderful world that would be! I actually have come to wonder if it's this utopian thinking that's the reason why communism doesn't die out. People are determined they can have the perfect world, and they'll stop at nothing - not even the needless death of literally millions of children - to get it.

Well queen, I know Several people who lived In Eastern Germany, and, yes, you had no Freedom of expression (Except in Satire), but no, there was no abject poverty. A roof over your Head was guaranteed as was food (bananas were scarce) and Child care.
As for the Soviet Union: Most people were in abject poverty under the Zar, and then Wwll followed. The Idea that communism made those people poor is a bit simplicistic.

As for Freedom of expression: that doesn‘t Look too good in Capitalism either. Not only are Media concentrated in the hand of a few rich capitalists, which obvioulsy limits published opinion severely, no, there is something called D notice, and the US now openly claims the right to prosecute any journalist of any nationality working anywhere in the world, if said Journalist owns or publishes anything considered a ‚US state secret‘. So much for freedom of expression in the Free World.

@deepwatersolo

I'm pretty sure that prostitution (and the exploitation of women in general) has existed in every society, including pre-capitalist, and communist, societies.

The point is: in societies where there is communal housing and food is provided for by the state, at least a woman is not forced into prostitution to survive.

On this board women have posted who said their social aid had been 'reformed' (=cut and delayed) and cited this as the reason for why they had resorted to prostitution, to not lose the roof over their head. I am sure in Eastern Germany women prostituted themselves, too, but they sure as hell did not do it to keep a roof over their head or to avoid starvation.

So they were doing it for fun? Because being a prostitute is in fact a real job?

I don't think you have much understanding of just how bloody awful life was in Communist East Germany.

Anyway here's some information about prostitution under Communist rule. Basically illegal but a sort of blind eye turned to it as it was useful for a number of reasons.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_German_Democratic_Republic

And I still don‘t know what is so horrific about Cuba. Obviously, their standard of living would be higher, if they hadn‘t been sanctioned by the US for the better half of a century. But the samctions aren‘t an intrinsic failure of Communism...

Well,Dido, if you think the MI6 doesn‘t use prodtitutes for gaining information, I have a bridge to sell... My point stands, women did not resort to prostitution there for fear of losing their homes if they could not Pay the rent. Why don‘t you talk to people who lived there, for a start?

I will admit that in my youth I too thought myself a communist and I just pretty much ignored all the people going WTF at me

I suppose for many people in the aftermath of the huge debt owed by Europe to the Red Army was very difficult to ignore.

Then there was the glamour attached to the likes of Guevara, Allende and Ortega (and hollow laugh there- turns out Reagan was right all along - Ortega was indeed a "dangerous little Marxist" . Nicaragua is a terrible place to be a woman)

I also have friends who lived in East Germany and under other communist regimes. They tell a rather different story.

No I don't think you can blame the 20 million plus deaths in Russia alone on the former Czar, any more than you can blame Stalin's death camps on the allies or on Japan. You're not really arguing in the realm of reality and it's honestly a bit offensive, like blaming the Holocaust on the economic depression that preceded the Nazis.

You are mistaken. The opposite of communism is in fact capitalism. It is the mode in which property is treated. Insofar, many indigenous tribes are in fact communist.

Capitalism is about the capacity for unrestricted private ownership of trade and large economic enterprises. If communism is just 'not that' then every system of government is communist except Periclean Athens and the western system from maybe 1750ish. Actually, I suppose some communist countries would be capitalist if this were the only measure. No field of study defines communism so narrowly.

There are loads of systems which are not capitalism- feudalism, oligarchy, tribalism, anarchy.

I think it's pretty clear that everyone else is discussing the political movement of communism, not just the theoretical idea of a moneyless economy.

In capitalism, of course, where a human body is just viewed as capital to be used and invested, this desperate measure is rebranded as 'choice'.

There are lots of models of capitalism. Nordic and German model capitalism are the antithesis of what you describe. I don't think any country, even the US, aspires to that level of turbo-capitalism.

You have to look at societies in the way they really are, rather than as a philosophy exercise. The western capitalist/democratic model (which includes social democracy) has produced huge advances for humanity. It has many failings, but it's best examples are the pinnacle of human society thus far and it's worst abuses have usually been opposed from within.

Communism at its very best has been highly oppressive and it's worst abuses rank amongst the most awful things humanity has ever done.

Dido I was an idealist and there was quite some glamour to it. But honestly I was indoctrinated and it took a long time to realise that the gulag was real and not just imperialist lies designed to undermine the great communist project.

As Peter Hitchens says of his own foray into communism, I was extremely wrong. It's why I have some empathy with people who are taken in by the TRAs today. I probably would have been taken in too. It's easy to indoctrinate people by manipulating their idealism. Thankfully, I was lucky enough to free my mind and undo the indoctrination through education.

The Idea that communism made those people poor is a bit simplicistic.

Free markets have (on average) massively outperformed centralised economies in the last 100 years.

That said, my main objection to communism (in equating it to Naziism) that it made a lot of people dead, if it just made people poor I wouldn't be too bothered.

Yes - we were talking about millions dead through starvation under communist regimes. Funny how the goalposts keep moving in this conversation.