marxismdworkinism

[marxismdworkinism]

A man from a suburb of Chicago who opened his basement to homeless people on freezing nights last month has complied with a local government order to stop.

“These people are my friends,” the man, Greg Schiller, who has worked with the homeless community in Elgin, Ill., for several years, said in an interview with AM 560 in Chicago on Friday. “This is basically the city telling me who I can have over, who my friends can be and where we can congregate in my home.”

He called the gatherings “movie nights” and said he had offered hot drinks and snacks. At most, 15 people stayed, he said, adding that he remained up all night to supervise the gathering.

But city officials on Friday said the arrangement was unlawful and a zoning and public safety issue, as well as a property maintenance issue.

[marxismdworkinism]

I could definitely see Musk as more of a Stirner egoist.

Engels antis, this is who you’re allied with.

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

It is valuable to note that the oppression of gays and lesbians ties in to the oppression of women, and it is 100% to do with reproduction.

The working class is a resource to the elite, and the working class is produced by women’s wombs, the factories of human reproduction. Women must remain oppressed so that they reproduce. Gay people are oppressed for failing to reproduce, and therefore not being useful to the elite.

It all comes back down to resources, usefulness to the elite.

[marxismdworkinism]

Can you give a historical example of any kind of "civilian- focused" innovation that occurred in the US that all civilians, including working class, poor, and homeless people, actually have had access to? And that didn't also exist in the USSR?

I’ll give you five examples that did not exist in the USSR.

1) Mass produced cheap housing, which is not a factor that exists now due to a variety of reasons post Reagan but never had the slightest will on the part of the Gosplan planners to produce a single shred of it and so they never did.

2) Agricultural innovation in the USA overproduces to a point that the USA pays its farmers to distinctly underproduce. The USSR literally conned the USA out of its entire grain reserve for the year 1977 to prevent a 1933 style famine in its last couple of decades, because collectivization took the inefficient foundation of late Tsarist agriculture and made it astronomically worse.

3) Computers and the Internet. The USSR never came close to developing this and would never have done so because information was power in the USSR and the Internet was a political threat to this….even if it had the ability to develop it, and it most assuredly did not.

4) The modern online economy that kept people fed now. Now you might whine and say ‘but the USSR doesn’t co-exist with it’ and I would take that as proving the point about the Soviet Union.

5) The distribution centers, in the form of Wal-Mart like superstores and grocery stores, with full shelves, which absolutely did not exist in the Soviet Union.

Now I fully expect bad faith responses from people who will insist that the USSR totally had all of this and  conspicuously failed to get it in front of television cameras  and that it did decline and fall because warrgarbl CIA and not Gorbachev losing the Russian tradition of mass butchery of the masses to preserve the classes for a moment in time.

[marxismdworkinism]

there needs to be a word that isn’t boyfriend or girlfriend and isn’t as professional as partner but isn’t as cringe as lover

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

Why Should Women Care About Marxism?

Radical feminists often criticize certain aspects of capitalism, like the beauty industry and sex industry. The sex industry pre-dates capitalism as a societal institution, but may be an early example of it in history: the pimp, the brothel owner, as the bourgeoisie, extracting profit from the women who are both labor and resource.

Patriarchy pre-dates capitalism as well, and the patriarchal family model may also be seen as the earliest form of micro-capitalism: the man as head of household owns everything. The woman is both labor and resource. The family unit produces children to the man's benefit at his whim. She depends upon him to survive, the way a worker depends on their wages from the business owner.

Men object to capitalism because of the exploitative structure--now they are the wives whose labor profits the owners, the husbands, of the property at which they work.

Why should women object to capitalism?

Firstly, they, the bourgeoisie, the owners, are distant husbands even to single women, even when they are women. And secondly, because capitalism requires patriarchy to function, we can never rid ourselves of patriarchy until after capitalism has been destroyed.

Capitalism consolidates power in the hands of the bourgeoisie. They control the structures and foundations of society by how they shape law, infrastructure, economy, human rights. Patriarchy benefits them because they need a high birth rate to keep a growing population. They use that to create competition in the labor force, to keep wages low. They also need a steady stream of fresh bodies to die in their wars of acquisition. This is why you see worries in the media about a low birth rate.

All of the structures of patriarchy benefit the elite, and they have no incentive at all to end women's oppression, because it would end their ability to exploit everyone for profit.

Only patriarchal women will ever be allowed to rise to the top in these structures, and the only progress we can make under these structures will be limited just enough to keep us from revolt.

How can Marxism benefit women?

Past communist victories should be put in to perspective of what it was like for women before and after. We must note both their failures and their successes in order to properly learn from the past.

Thomas Sankara outlawed FGM, child marriage, and polygamy. Mao ended footbinding. There were strides made, yet still these things were not enough.

That is why female leadership in revolutionary action is critical.

What Marxism has to offer women is economic freedom--under a communist economy, businesses are not owned by the bourgeoisie, they are owned by the workers of that business. The workers vote democratically on if a certain job deserves more shares of the profits due to specialization, or if workers deserve more shares after a certain number of years.

This not only means that the hard work you do pays off for you, but also a complete closure of the wage gap, which is something private businesses under capitalism enforce. And the bourgeoisie enforce this because it enables patriarchy. It keeps women dependent on men and subject to reproductive exploitation.

Freeing women from economic dependence on men is the first step to liberating women. It allows women to choose to live on their own, without being forced to depend on marriage to men for survival.

[marxismdworkinism]

The other day at work, the crew and I experienced some work code violations that were more than usual for our industry, and as everyone was complaining, I saw an opportunity to throw in some suggestions towards unionizing.

Unfortunately, one of them turned out to be a bootlicker (the only white man, of course), who said someday he wants to be a business owner. And he talked about how “it’s so hard to manage a lot of employees” and empathized more with the boss than our boss ever would with him or any of us.

I knew I couldn’t get in more as long as he was there, present, making his words seem reasonable. Going to have to wait for a better opportunity to bring up the subject again, when he isn’t around.

#unionizing #unions #communist #socialist #working class

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

spread this as much as you can.

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

i hate these people defending the supreme courts recent pro-slavery decision for two main reasons

1. why do we still gotta pretend this is not another decision-making body of politicians? why the fuck do you nerds freak out whenever there's a vacancy if whenever there isn't one you immediately go back to living in that fantasy? these people 'interpret' in whichever way is most convenient for their interests and can concoct whatever precedent they need.

2. they keep passing the responsibility onto countries that Nestle has the money to conquer ten times over. what do you expect to happen? they'd sooner assassinate half of west africa then lose out on profits

[marxismdworkinism]

[marxismdworkinism]

TL;DR: Nestle argued they could not be sued for funding, overseeing, and profiting from a system of child slavery in Africa because the conduct did not occur in the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled in Nestle’s favor.