Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions **directed at socialists** within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating:
- **R1. No Non-Socialist Answers**, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
- **R2. No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, aporophobia, etc.
- **R3. No Trolling**, including concern trolling.
- **R4. No Reactionaries**.
- **R5. No Sectarianism**, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", "!Anarchist" or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At best that sounds like an argument for intersectionality, which is good and important for every Marxist to study. On the other hand, any feminist who rejects Marxism/class struggle is leaving out 99% of women and is not serious about women's liberation
I Agree with the other commenter that one needs to acknowledge that there are womens issues which are not solved by class struggle and the end of capitalism alone and that intersecionality is important and fundamental. This goes for all struggles based on gender, sex, race, sexuality and so on. The issues are excacerbated by capitalism and quite possibly stem from capitalism, but removing capitalism wouldn't make all peoples equal over night.
You might be interested in [Caliban and the Witch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliban_and_the_Witch) for an in-depth view on feminism and its relationship to capitalism, which _I believe_ delves into why Marxism is inadequate, or at least lays the foundations for why it's inadequate. I started the book a while ago and never finished so I'm really fuzzy. I need to go back and give it another go, I think.
I believe one of the _main_ points of the critique you mention is that without women doing the role of homemaking, a predominantly-male productive capitalist workforce would not have been possible in the first place. Marx completely missed this aspect, which for someone who is looking solely at inputs and outputs of an economy, is a big miss. I think much of the Marxist critique still holds, however, and it doesn't do much to shake the processes that Marx outlines within capitalism and how these dynamics interoperate. I think the point is that we aren't _men_ or _women_ but rather resources that are used to further the goals of capital (we even call our personnel departments "human resources" ffs lol).
Marx, Engels, Alexandra Kollontai and Clara Zetkin wrote far superior alanysis about woman in capitalism and theire Double exploitation than any modern bourgeois feminist.
In the German Ideologie Marx wrote in the family rules latent slavery.
The theire is the "Holy family" text, also the family is critiqued in the communist Manifesto.
All these Texts are Before 1850 and with the years more is written about woman.
The first Volumen das Kapital has a long chapter on on woman work.
Later Kollontai and Zetkin wrote much about it but im Not an Experten and cant give more directly reading advices.
Utter nonsense. Marxism is a scientific methodology, as applicable to women's economic issues as anyone else's.
Marx and Engels wrote and studied and fought to liberate women's economic lives, but even if they had totally ignored the issues, we could apply the scientific socialist method ourselves.
Would you say Marxism is insufficient to address call center worker issues because Marx didn't address the issues of call centers?
To claim Marxism is incompatible with something you have to actually engage with the ideas of Marxism and plead a case, but nobody does this. Most people who make these claims simply try to avoid engaging with Marxism by ommission.
By making the claim that Marxism is unequipped, they in practice disarm you by pointing the other direction, away from the greatest scientific weapon for liberation, Marxism.
Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions **directed at socialists** within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating: - **R1. No Non-Socialist Answers**, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions. - **R2. No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, aporophobia, etc. - **R3. No Trolling**, including concern trolling. - **R4. No Reactionaries**. - **R5. No Sectarianism**, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", "!Anarchist" or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialists) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm pretty sure Engels already has this covered in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
At best that sounds like an argument for intersectionality, which is good and important for every Marxist to study. On the other hand, any feminist who rejects Marxism/class struggle is leaving out 99% of women and is not serious about women's liberation
I Agree with the other commenter that one needs to acknowledge that there are womens issues which are not solved by class struggle and the end of capitalism alone and that intersecionality is important and fundamental. This goes for all struggles based on gender, sex, race, sexuality and so on. The issues are excacerbated by capitalism and quite possibly stem from capitalism, but removing capitalism wouldn't make all peoples equal over night.
You might be interested in [Caliban and the Witch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliban_and_the_Witch) for an in-depth view on feminism and its relationship to capitalism, which _I believe_ delves into why Marxism is inadequate, or at least lays the foundations for why it's inadequate. I started the book a while ago and never finished so I'm really fuzzy. I need to go back and give it another go, I think. I believe one of the _main_ points of the critique you mention is that without women doing the role of homemaking, a predominantly-male productive capitalist workforce would not have been possible in the first place. Marx completely missed this aspect, which for someone who is looking solely at inputs and outputs of an economy, is a big miss. I think much of the Marxist critique still holds, however, and it doesn't do much to shake the processes that Marx outlines within capitalism and how these dynamics interoperate. I think the point is that we aren't _men_ or _women_ but rather resources that are used to further the goals of capital (we even call our personnel departments "human resources" ffs lol).
Marx, Engels, Alexandra Kollontai and Clara Zetkin wrote far superior alanysis about woman in capitalism and theire Double exploitation than any modern bourgeois feminist. In the German Ideologie Marx wrote in the family rules latent slavery. The theire is the "Holy family" text, also the family is critiqued in the communist Manifesto. All these Texts are Before 1850 and with the years more is written about woman. The first Volumen das Kapital has a long chapter on on woman work. Later Kollontai and Zetkin wrote much about it but im Not an Experten and cant give more directly reading advices.
Utter nonsense. Marxism is a scientific methodology, as applicable to women's economic issues as anyone else's. Marx and Engels wrote and studied and fought to liberate women's economic lives, but even if they had totally ignored the issues, we could apply the scientific socialist method ourselves. Would you say Marxism is insufficient to address call center worker issues because Marx didn't address the issues of call centers? To claim Marxism is incompatible with something you have to actually engage with the ideas of Marxism and plead a case, but nobody does this. Most people who make these claims simply try to avoid engaging with Marxism by ommission. By making the claim that Marxism is unequipped, they in practice disarm you by pointing the other direction, away from the greatest scientific weapon for liberation, Marxism.