all 16 comments

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

There was at least one Marxist group that rejected gender identity theory on the grounds that it was anti-materialist and too radically subjective. I can't remember what it was, but there was at least one.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I came across an article while doing some searches that talked a communist group from the 70s/80s was opposed to gay rights because they believed it was a misogynistic attack on women's rights. Very confusing topic to research, with both liberals & communists advocating and rejecting gay rights or ownership of the gay rights movement.

In the 1950s & 60s, Soviets used to mock the degeneracy of the west, while they were upholding classical traditions.

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Gay rights is a football that's been tossed around all over the place. I've seen arguments to the effect that capitalism is fundamental to gay identity because wage labor makes it possible for individuals to live outside the structure of the traditional family.

I also heard that China is now doubling-down on family values because they see the patriarchal family as a tool for social order.

American Communists have never really lived under Communism, so I think they tend to see it as some sort of benign anarchy, bless their naive little hearts.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It seems to me that any state that is interesting in controlling the means of production is going to take a keen interest in the means of producing people.

Like it or not gay couplings do not produce children. It stands to reason that any centralized planning will only value such relationships when they have a situation where they don't need more children. The massive post war population booms being a good example of this. Such a situation isn't sustainable and as population demographics shift you'll see a focus back on traditional relationships for procreative purposes.

I think a more interesting idea to ponder is the benefits of gay relationships for any sort of corporate entities. It somewhat makes sense to me that corporations would be interested in hiring gay employees as they are far less likely to take parental leave.

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Like it or not gay couplings do not produce children. It stands to reason that any centralized planning will only value such relationships when they have a situation where they don't need more children.

Gay people are really too small a percentage of the population to have a great impact on the birth rate, and lesbian couples can easily produce children with a minimal sperm donation. If a government really wanted to increase the birth rate by any means, one step would be to outlaw contraception for heterosexual couples.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A lot of Gen Z is "politically gay." As in, they reject heteronormativity and the nuclear family as a rejection of capitalism.

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, the fact remains that modern gay identity appeared at around the same time as modern industrial capitalism and urbanization, in contrast to a more rural, agrarian way of life. And it was the same transformation of work and family that allowed women to live independently, as opposed to being bound to the family by childbearing and child-rearing responsibilities.

And, of course, capitalism created the smartphones that, in turn, created (or warped) the minds of Gen Z. I don't see too many of them wanting to go live off-grid in the wilderness. That would be too scary.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, belief in communism didn't appear until industrial capitalism either. Marx himself said it wasn't possible before that.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree they are basically statistically irrelevant in the long run but usually countries that go towards such centralized planning tend to be totalitarian states and they aren't usually tolerant of "alternative lifestyles" outside of what the planning committee have prescribed as best.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

American Communists have taken the logic: Karl Marx has a long white beard, Santa Claus has a long white beard, ergo, Karl Marx is literally Santa Claus. As such, genderwoo will be connected because trans people truly believe the second communism is installed the transformation will be fully complete and they will become a literal anime girl- but then, the incel believes communism will give them a girlfriend, the bigot believes the group they hate will be exterminated, etc.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

there is a subset of "classical Marxists", for lack of a better term, who see gender ideology as more of a neoliberal/corporate product (which I agree with - to an extent.) Though they tend to hand-wave away the support within leftist academia, and how much it has attached itself to the Marxist cause.

That's explicitly true. The whole gender bullshit aligns perfectly with liberalism and a right wing framework of gender. Yes i fully understand that people who call themselves leftists, marxists, communists, etc are all bought into the trans stuff but i really can't think of a way to make the puzzle pieces fit in a way that could make the gender ideology be a leftist concept. I generally attribute it to these people being bat shit crazy and that nothing they say regarding gender makes sense anyway. They can call themselves leftists just as much as they can call themselves nonbinary. That doesn't mean it makes sense.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think it works toward abolishing gender roles, which Marxists would think are imposed upon society (oppressing women) by way of capitalism. Leftists seem very confused to me about their position on gender and gender identity.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Gender abolitionists are quite opposed to transgender ideas. Those people are the radical feminists who got renamed to "TERFs" before they just started calling everyone who mildly disagreed with them a TERF. I agree there is a lot of confusion but it feels like a psyop to fuck with leftists because then we can never talk about ending wars or corporate greed.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think corporatists/monopolists have been exploiting Marxist/socialist ideas for a long time. They don't want a full Marxist revolution, but like the idea of the state protecting their monopolies and gambling on state actions that they themselves can coerce and predict. Marxist language itself is used to curry favour, even if it contains no actual Marxism.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Marxist language itself is used to curry favour, even if it contains no actual Marxism.

Well that's a good point and it's similar to what liberals do with leftist language in general. like people like Pelosi or Clinton legitimately believe they are "on the left" because they talk about invading and occupying Afghanistan in the context of putting girls in school.

At the same time you get people enforcing a gender hierarchy like "that girl is a boy because she likes to fix cars." While calling that leftist or using Marxist language as you say. No that shit is extremely hierarchical and therefore right wing.

It doesn't help that they all constantly self identify as leftist Marxist etc so everyone who sees this just points at them and says "see the left is like this."

For some reason i don't see this inverted self labelling happen on the right except recently in the context of populism. Populists are now claiming to be "right wing" and are being labeled as such by the media but populism is by definition left wing. It also happens a bit with libertarians who sort of horse shoe around to almost advocating for communism but with property rights.

[–]CheeseWizard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sure colorful queer people would be absolutely loved and accepted in socialist countries like China and North Korea.