im another privileged white male 1st world socialist and a grump
Liberalism has the following weaknesses:
1. It focuses on the individual rights rather than collective rights
2. It is ahistorical. It does not have a comprehensive understanding of women’s role in history nor has it any analysis for the subordination (subjugation) of women.
3. It tends to be mechanical in its support for formal equality without a concrete understanding of the condition of different sections/classes of women and their specific problems. Hence it was able to express the demands of the middle classes (white women from middle classes in the US and upper class, upper caste women in India) but not those of women from various oppressed ethnic groups, castes and the working, labouring classes.
4. It is restricted to changes in the law, educational and employment opportunities, welfare measures etc and does not question the economic and political structures of the society which give rise to patriarchal discrimination. Hence it is reformist in its orientation, both in theory and in practice.
5. It believes that the state is neutral and can be made to intervene in favour of women when in fact the bourgeois state in the capitalist countries and the semi-colonial and semi-feudal Indian state are patriarchal and will not support women’s struggle for emancipation. The State is defending the interests of the ruling classes who benefit from the subordination and devalued status of women.
6. Since it focuses on changes in the law, and state schemes for women, it has emphasised lobbying and petitioning as means to get their demands. The liberal trend most often has restricted its activity to meetings and conventions and mobilising petitions calling for changes. It has rarely mobilised the strength of the mass of women and is in fact afraid of the militant mobilisation of poor women in large numbers. “Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement” by Anuradha Ghandy (via bourgeoisentimentality)
- workers: *occupies the factory*
- liberals: uhm that's stealing :/
Anonymous said: conservatives say liberals are fascist, liberals say conservatives are fascist, how is this different from socialist critique of liberalism and conservatism as both being fascist? not a gotcha question, I want to learn more
The dichotomy between liberal and conservative comes out of the specific class formation that capitalism created in order to develop itself through the primitive accumulation phase. It involved the creation of social hierarchies based on skin colour and genitals and such that could be used to justify violence on a massive and genocidal scale, securing the consent of some of the populace by allowing them a small part of the booty. This evolved first into a situation in 18th and 19th century Europe where capitalists were united under a liberal/whig party and feudalists were united under a conservative party. Slowly, feudalists themselves were turned into agricultural capitalists through reforms like the end of the corn laws, and the two parties became the two wings of capitalism. Liberals are typically internationalist in character, believing that capitalism should be continually pushed to its greatest bounds, and this means that the state must take over some functions in society to ensure its proper stewardship. They also wish for rationalization, including the removal of old social prejudices to a degree to make capitalism more dynamic. Virtually no nation in history developed through capitalism without strong state discipline of individual firms, without socializing the costs of research and development, and without doing major amounts of economic planning, possibly through proxies like the military-industrial complex or simply straight up like japan’s MITI. Conservatives on the other hand are the group of fearful provincial capitalism. They embody what capitalists hate about democracy, that the state powers used to expand capitalism could also be used to take their property from them. They believe in the lies of capitalism about social hierarchy and fear the loss of the continued violent coercion that keeps property safe. Liberals on the other hand believe that letting black people and homosexuals and such be rich improves capitalism’s standing in the eyes of the poor, helping them to believe that they one day may be rich too. American political discourse tortures any concepts until they became staid, nondescriptive, predictable, simplified and entirely controllable, so these ideas manifest as “big government, small government”. Based on these signifiers, American pundits then proceed to bash each other by noticing that one or the other had parallels in an old and hated enemy, Nazi Germany, the fascists. This group represents the failure of both capitalism and communism, the former to keep the state, the latter to seize the state. They’re closer to conservatives in the sense that they believe in the lies of capitalism about hierarchy and in the direct application of violence to gain their goals, and that they’re typically those provincialists who are excluded from the power halls of capitalism on most days, the petit bourgeoisie, upwardly mobile professionals who resent both the upper and lower classes as parasites. They do tend to discipline firms that don’t follow their policy dictates though. However, under fascists as under liberals and conservatives, property is safeguarded no matter what. Instead, they’re a threat to the internationalist capitalist order because they believe in national capitalism, not international capitalism, and will stop capitalism from expanding in a more totalizing manner. They’re also ideologically motivated to fight communism in the extreme, meaning they can be useful at times. We’ve reached a point where capitalism can set them up and knock them down with relative ease, such as the 1965 Indonesian coup and the 1998 Indonesian revolution, where American and world bank dictates were able to cohere and eliminate governments in a matter of hours (4 in the latter case). Socialists note that it’s only capitalists that use fascism because it’s inherent in capitalism’s crises, and bash the entire system for its creations, where as liberals and conservatives are only looking to score rhetorical points by comparing their opponents to an old hated enemy in form but not substance.
i missed this. like.