China’s gonna be a phenomenal world leader.
This is like accelerationism but for creating capitalism
Idk if Bangladeshi women are very liberated. (obviously better than Afghanistan but still)
there still needs to be a transition from capitalism.
I get the point. Now, all my aprons come from Pakistan, how are women’s rights doing there? Or India? Or Bangladesh?
“Better than before women were employed in factories”, OK fine. But this comment should be indistinguishable from r/neoliberal if that place weren’t nazis in denial
Its good to be sceptical, but just because one person tells a lie, doesn’t make that statement universally a lie.
Nazi neolibs are not speaking in good faith.
when youre turnt up on dialectical materialism
When you hit 200 hours in Victoria 3.
I much prefer the western strategy where we bomb the shit out of them until they realize how superior our western valuestm are.
MY favorite western strategy to instill Western Values™ is to intentionally seek out the most right-wing weirdos in the country, go out of our way to convince them that women’s rights is a Communist plot to lead them to Satan, and supply them with stinger missiles
He put it very vulgarly but that’s more or less a point I’ve read from other marxists, that proletarianization MAY bring about mass politics
women were involved in the industrial workforce in the west from the beginning, and three waves of feminism were still needed - the work not even over after that. So I don’t really know if i agree with this take.
Did a single women’s liberatory movement succeed before development of the industrial capacity and the incentive capital provides to the national bourgeoisie to see things change?
We must prioritise the prerequisites. Certain material conditions are a necessity to meet before those movements can see success.
EDIT: The phrasing is a bit racist in this part of the manifesto but still relevant:
The rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.
I’m not arguing against what the poster in the image is suggesting doing, I just think they’re too hopeful. I’m making the point that the process they describe will not in and of itself result in “women’s liberation” in Afghanistan.
Fair. There are several steps that follow but some must occur before others out of necessity.
Did a single women’s liberatory movement succeed before development of the industrial capacity and the incentive capital provides to the national bourgeoisie to see things change?
I finished Graeber’s “History of Everything” not too long ago, and want to say this gets touched on, and the answer is ‘yes.’
That said, I gave my copy to my dad and would need to go page through it to cite that, so I very well may be wrong. Plus, it would have been centuries ago anyways, so not sure it’s really relevant to your initial question.
Second this. The situation of Women in the 19th century is very deeply tied to the whole “global European empire of terror” and doesn’t necessarily reflect conditions in other cultures at other times.
There seems to be a lot of active socialists in my part of the country and historic support for women’s and queer rights, I wonder if it has to do with knowledge of indigenous cultures from my region? Several tribes active here had a matriarchal governance structure, they would have rotating councils of women meet to discuss issues and distribution of resources in what could be described as a socialist system. Nearly all political knowledge in the west is rooted in white imperialist ideologies, my heart aches thinking where we could be today if egalitarian or socialist tribes were allowed to flourish.
That feels like saying “yeah, but unions existed in 1920, so I don’t think I agree that unions were able to win any labor rights.” The poster is proposing a process that will initiate gains in womens rights that can’t be as easily reversed as gains from an external military imposition, not automatic guarantee of immediate equality.
unions are involved with actively fighting for workers’ rights so I don’t really think that’s a fair comparison. A more apt comparison would be saying a labor shortage will result in increased workers’ rights. The labor shortage in and of itself is not what will give the workers permanent gains, but it puts the workers and unions on the footing necessary to force those concessions from the capitalists.
Similar here, the process the poster is describing will only result in more women in the workforce, but not in and of itself result in “women’s liberation” in Afghanistan - that involves a political struggle.
The point of women joining the workforce is so they can then withhold their labor. This is what I understood to be the point of the Chinese comments. Just because they didn’t explicitly spell it out doesn’t mean that’s not what they had in mind. But the basic message is correct. Women have to be part of the workforce in order to even have political leverage.
I could imagine China using policy demands (similar to what the IMF does, but not evil) in exchange for financing, economic development, but IDK if turning Afghanistan into 18th century England will do much good.
I could imagine China using policy demands, similar to what the IMF does, still evil. That’s basically what the Belt and Road initiative is.
I don’t consider it a coincidence in the slightest that women’s liberation kicked into high gear with women’s employment and education opportunities. Anything else strikes me as cart before the horse.
