Soviet

MRM Marxism?

I don’t intend this article to be entirely in defense of leftist ideology (Marxism, communism, socialism, etc.), and I don’t mean to say that leftism is the answer to all of the problems men face. Rather, the purpose is more of a clarification. While the men’s rights movement has a diverse membership, there is a large anti-left tendency, particularly hostility towards socialist or communist ideology.

I am proposing a few points which I want to elaborate on. First, I want to explain the ideology of the left, including specific terminology. Second, I’d like to state how, contrary to what feminists may claim when using the leftist movement, feminism is actually in opposition to Marxist communism in particular, and leftism in general. Also, I would like to point out how the men’s rights movement can actually benefit from leftism, including communist ideology and Marxism, as well as how capitalism, especially as it exists now in the West, is harmful to men.

As for background, I don’t have a PhD in Marxism, and the closest I come is studying for a Master’s in the People’s Republic Of China (a name with almost as many falsities in it as the Holy Roman Empire, though at least the PRC is Chinese). I also don’t consider myself entirely Marxist, socialist, nor communist, and have issues with all three (I prefer to keep unlabeled, as labels tend to be inaccurate and troublesome), though also find points of agreement with Marxism and especially limited state socialism.

However, I have read the Communist Manifesto, gone through Wage, Labour, & Capital, and I have been a part of an anti-capitalist organization on my college campus where I have seen that organization reflect an increasingly feminist stance. Though, in case McCarthyists are interested, I am not now, and nor have I ever been, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party.

One problem with the definitions is that even among scholars and experts, there is not full consensus on terminology. However, I have come up with some working definitions which are basic enough to be more or less agreed upon. When I say leftism, I’m referring to general anti-capitalist tendencies, which include various branches of communism (Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc.), socialism, syndicalism, anarchism, and the variations (anarcho-socialism, social democracy, libertarian socialism, anarcho-primitivism, etc.). Specifically, communism is a political and economic theory developed (though not invented by) Karl Marx in which all property is publicly and collectively owned. Communist ideology holds that there are two main classes, the workers (proletariat), who do the actual physical work, and capitalists (bourgeoisie), who own the means of production, such as land and factories, and make money from the work of others.

Capitalism, according to leftist thought, is inherently exploitative, especially since companies are driven by the mandate to make profit, and the concerns of the workers don’t factor into a company unless they affect profit. An illustration would be an example of a factory. The workers perform all the labor, but they do not own the finished product, nor have true say in the working conditions, pay, or workplace safety. The owner makes all of the decisions, and also owns the finished products, and sells them on the open market to earn a profit.

After subtracting the cost of materials, transportation, and operational costs, the capitalist (not the workers) decides how much of the money made from the sales to give to the workers, as well as how much money to spend on such things as workplace safety (if any is spent). In modern times (the Communist Manifest was written over a century and a a half ago), this is further developed into exploring how corporations work within the state, such as political lobbies and government regulation, or lack thereof.

Socialism, then, would be an answer to this. Socialism would primarily collectivization, taking the means of production from capitalists, and putting power into the hands of the workers (collective farming after the Chinese revolution, for example) by means of a socialist state. Capitalists as a class would be eliminated, and individual capitalists would then become workers (this also happened during the Chinese revolution, though often though force, when landowners often attempted to hold onto their property).

A socialists state would also have a planned economy, where the state controls the means of production in the name of the workers (as opposed to direct control by workers, such as in syndicalism), and makes all economic decisions, i.e. It would be full nationalization. This would be the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and according to Marx, “… the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Ideally, however, it would still be accountable to the workers, so that those who work in the factories would be protected from exploitation by the government, which would be answerable to the people.

It should be noted that this hasn’t been the case historically. Leon Trotsky accused the Soviet Union of being a “… degenerated workers’ state under the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.” Mao Zedong also initially criticized members the Chinese Communist Party who he saw as becoming a new social class of ruling elite, and called for the workers to also voice criticism. However he did also change his stance quickly when he personally felt threatened by such criticism (“Fight the power” is a less appealing slogan when you are the one in power).

Pure communism would be the final stage, where the state power vastly declines, and is decentralized into the hands of the individual workers. It would be a completely classless society, where all are equal, democratically elected officials would rule by consent of the ruled. The people would then own the means of production through the state, and so all decisions regarding the actual running of businesses, as well as how to spend the material wealth generated, would be made in the interests of the workers. Using the earlier factory example, under communism, the workers at the factory could decide to spend the profits made on better salaries or working conditions.

As mentioned before, there are a great many leftist ideologies besides Marxist communism, however addressing them would take a great amount of time, and risk going too far off the main topic of how leftism relates to men’s rights. While there are many disagreements on issues such as how strong the state should be, or what should be the level of organization, the basic tenants of opposing capitalism, and putting power into the hands of the common people, the workers, are held by almost all leftist ideologies. However, I’ll be mainly addressing Marxist communist ideology. While the above explanations are still lengthy, it’s important to know the terms.

Feminism has, especially recently, allied itself with Marxism (you can check the sites of many Marxist and Marxist derived organizations), as well as forming their own organizations that are explicitly Marxist-feminist (as well as socialist-feminist, or communist-feminist, distancing from pure Marxist ideology), such as Radical Women, or the Freedom Socialist Party. However, while these organizations may have helped feminists in gaining more power, by co-opting communism and socialism, they ignore that feminism is incompatible with Marxist thought, as well as leftism in general.

Most obviously, and most importantly, Marxist ideology is based on class struggle. From the Communist Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

 

Nowhere there is any mention of sex or gender. Feminists, both Marxist and otherwise, add “men and women” to the “oppressor and oppressed” list, but in doing so, completely and often intentionally miss the point. According to Marxism, a person is a member of the oppressor class by oppressing. A person is a member of the oppressed class, by being oppressed. It is all based on action and behavior. For feminists, a person is a member of the oppressor class by having a penis, and a person is a member of the oppressed class by having a vagina. This allows any man to be demonized as oppressor without considering if he actually did any oppressing.

Likewise, a woman gets the status of oppressed, with all the moral high ground, regardless of if she actually was oppressed. Marxism would see a male coal miner as oppressed, and a female sweatshop owner as oppressor, while feminism would not, looking only at gender. The miner, by having a penis, would be hated as privileged, and the sweatshop owner, by having a vagina, would be thought of as held down by the patriarchy. Marx himself, as far back as the mid 1800s, said “Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.”

While feminist Marxists (as well as other leftist feminists) pay lip service worker’s rights, they fail to address that men are the ones currently most exploited by the current system (and would also benefit most in abolishing the current system).

For example, and this is just one such example, an article “The Russian Revolution and the Emancipation of Women” on the International Communist League website says, “A working woman has more in common with her male co-workers than with a female boss, and the emancipation of women is the task of the working class as a whole.” [1]

This is true, and under Marxism, women would be liberated as part of the working class no more or less than men would be liberated as part of the same class. Despite stating this, the same author also says, “Today, millions of women even in the advanced capitalist “democracies” endure nasty and brutish lives of misery and drudgery. In the United States, to name just two instances of anti-woman bigotry, abortion rights are under increasing attack and quality childcare is scarce and too costly for most working women.” [1]

This flagrantly ignores that men are the majority of workplace fatalities [2] (here’s the BLS statistic, even though most MRAs have it burned into their minds to the point where I could simply offer the citation as “Your own memory”),  because mine owners decide that it would cut into profits too much to improve safety inspections. When there’s a disaster on an oil derrick, women aren’t disproportionately the ones crushed under tons of twisted machinery and drowned. This is not to say that women never have the dirty and dangerous jobs, but rather that men outnumber women in these jobs.

The author also assumes that only women have rights on the issue of abortion (ignoring men, who lack reproductive rights, and the unborn, who has no say at all in their own life or death), and that only women should have the right to childcare. This female supremacist viewpoint is something that can be found all over socialist/communist movements, as well as other leftist movements.

Men are also the ones forced into the system of wage slavery far more than women. Feminists ignore that women have society’s blessing to choose full-time work, part-time work, or full-time child care, while men who choose anything other than full-time work (and thus the greatest worker exploitation) are objects of ridicule in popular culture, and objects of suspicion when seen in public taking care of children (the only reason a man would want to be anywhere near a child is because he wants to rape it into oblivion, of course). Further, the current system of alimony and child support (both highly sexist), allow women to consider divorce and paternal fraud as careers.

The redistribution of wealth and resources is often a source of contention, where MRAs see governments benefit women with funding for specialized programs such as offices of women’s health, paid for with tax money, direct giving money to women through special loans to female business owners, and opportunities through affirmative action. The state also facilitates direct person to person transfer of wealth through alimony and child support (including making it easy to commit child support fraud). However, this is not a problem with wealth distribution (at least in terms of pure men’s rights), but how it is done, and how it is done is not Marxist, but following a feminist path of female supremacy.

According to Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Female victims of violence, the smallest population of violence victims, are given funding through shelters and programs (like VAWA) far above need. Following true Marxism, men would get the same tax supported benefits, such as funding for prostate cancer research.

Further, a worker’s state would be accountable not to the wealthy political donors (here’s a good place to note that women control a majority of the wealth [3], allowing them to decide what organizations to fund, and which political candidates to donate to) and lobby groups (such as the American Association Of University Women, or the National Organization Of Women, as only a few examples of powerful feminist lobbies), but to the workers themselves.

There is so much pushback for men’s reproductive rights because men lack the ability to install candidates friendly to the cause of male rights. Feminists can easily lobby for laws that redefine rape to exclude male victims, because MRAs have little say in the matter, lacking the wealth and resources. A Marxist state would have a mandate to protect all rape victims, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator and victim, and if the government failed to do so, there would be no powerful lobbies to drown out the voices calling for more egalitarian leadership.

While women control a majority of the wealth, men still earn a majority of the wages (and thus are the most oppressed by wage slavery, under Marxist thought), because men don’t have the choices women do. In fact, this is one way almost all forms of leftism, from anarchism to Zapatistismo, has much in common with zeta masculinity, and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW).

Zeta masculinity and anti-capitalism both acknowledge that the jostling for higher and higher position and blind accumulation of wealth and status are detrimental to the people who are trapped in such a life style. They both accept that people all have inherent value that is not contingent on the size of their bank account or how much they can produce for others to consume and profit from.

Both also could contribute to each other. Zeta masculinity can demonstrate how the drive to wealth and status is due to female hypergamy and societal pressure which ties the value of a male as person to his wealth and status. Leftism can offer for consideration how the acquisition of wealth and status is through worker exploitation. In a classless society, men would be free to go their own way without capitalists pushing for society and government to keep men in their place as an exploitable class, and without biased family laws using the threat of debtor’s prisons to have men support women and the children they did not chose to have (assuming they even helped to conceive them in the first place).

So finally, what can the MRM take from this? The MRM has plenty of theory, and while theory is important, so is practical application. Well, here is some such practical application. As stated, leftist ideology has more in common with men’s rights than many might think. While this doesn’t mean that MRAs need to become revolutionary Marxists, it would at least be an argument for giving leftism a detailed looking over as a possible path towards equality of the genders.

More importantly, it means that those who are already on the anti-capitalist left already have more in common with the MRM than they think (to look at it from the reverse side). MRAs might meet people who actually are card-carrying members of a communist party, or are some part of a left tendency movement (one such example is in an article [4] from a disgruntled anarchist I came across while researching this article). Those in communist, socialist, anarchist, or other such movements are faced with growing feminist domination to the point where they can be feel they need to choose to either support a leftist tendency, or a path towards male equality, but cannot do both.

This was actually my own experience, and one reason I felt the need for such an article as this. I was part of a leftist, anti-capitalist student union. While I never fully chose one label as identity, I agreed with much of Marxism, as well as communist ideology. However, I saw how the group became increasingly feminist, and pursued gynocentrism in ways that had real impact.

The organization had a women’s committee, without any such committee for men. Whenever rape was addressed, it was according to what feminism allowed (evil men raping innocent women), and because rape was something only men ever did, false rape accusations were taboo to talk about (feminist defined rape culture was treated with actual seriousness). The organization promoted International Women’s Day, with nothing for men.

The university, like so many other American universities, lacked a men’s resource center, despite having one for women, and the student union was silent, as it was also silent during the male shaming “Walk A Mile In Her Shoes” campaign. This was an organization that organized and participated in protests and hosted rallies for rights, just not for everyone’s rights. I was increasingly frustrated at the support, tacit and explicit, for inequality as long as it was female supremacist. More important than my discomfort was the feeling of lost opportunity. If there was a viable MRA view in this, and other such student unions, important changes could have been instituted.

We in the MRM need to make it know that they are not at all mutually exclusive. There exist people so revolutionarily Marxist that Che Guevara would have worn shirts with their faces. We can let them know that not only do they not need to abandon Marxism (or any other form of leftism) in order to seek male equality, but that must oppose feminism and take up gender equality in order to be true to their ideology.

MRAs can have the discourse tools needed to engage those on the left on terms they are familiar with, and appeal to already held views, not to persuade through deception or sleight of hand, as feminists have done, but with the logic and factuality the MRM has been forced to develop over the years by virtue of being a repressed viewpoint.

The MRM is not a monolithic organization, singular in thought on all things. Rather, it is a coalition of people united in the struggle to bring about gender equality. An advantage of a coalition is the way it brings together varying viewpoints. We have been good at allowing members of differing religious beliefs to feel welcome and bring their views.

Perhaps there is something a Jewish point of perspective can offer to men’s rights, or something atheism can bring, or Hinduism, or various forms of Christianity. Incidentally, this is in contrast to the above mentioned feminist “communist” organization, “ICL”, which only allows atheism, and is openly hostile to other beliefs.

If the MRM is able to benefit from acceptance of different religions, then there should be room for different political views (as long as those views are beneficial towards the goal of equality). Not only should there be tolerance in spite of the differences, but looking to see what these different political views can offer the movement.

 

[1] http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women The quoted passage on the site being: “Of the 743 women of wealth interviewed with at least $3 million in investable assets, 61.2% accumulated their fortunes through corporate employment, their own or a family business or a professional practice. Only 38.8% of the women had married into or inherited their money. – Women of Wealth, 2004, by Russ Alan Prince and Hannah Shaw Grove”

[2] http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/59/emancipation.html

[3] www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

[4] http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/08/towards-a-masculist-movement/

(Quotes from Marx come from the full annotated text of the Manifest Of The Communist Party, here) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

(Information regarding China’s history with communism was taken mainly from China: A Century Of Revolution, http://www.ambrica.com/chinainrevolution.html)

(Communism according to Marx, Engles, and Lenin http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism)

(Socialism as defined by Marx, Engles, and Bebel http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism)

About Mateusz Wacek

Mateusz Wacek, with an interest in gender rights, human rights, and animal rights, has an overdeveloped sense of equality. He isn't a political or gender expert, but he plays one on the Internet.

View All Posts
  • Kukla

    I don’t really mind the old-style Marxism(I don’t like it though), I just hate the modern cultural Marxism.

  • Mr. XY

    Just got to read this…SORRY, but it completely missed the mark.

    IN REALITY, Marxism is nothing it says it is. Communism is in nothing it says it is. You can’t compare theory to reality to argue that something doesn’t fit.

    Marx himself was a ruling class liar and hypocrite, and he explicitly supported mass murder in order to force his system on people ‘for their own good’. 20th Century Marxists figured out that men are the enemy because they made families strong which produced very strong and independent children. That’s a problem when the STATE wants to be Father and GOD.

    Feminists and women are just useful idiots. The same monstrous system they’ve helped unleash is also crushing them. We all see it more and more everyday.

  • Kukla

    I look at the occupy movements and there is many wanna-be communists, a lot of them also support feminism and want to destroy the “evul patriarchyyy!11!!!”.

    It’s okay if you’re a Commie, but it certainly won’t benefit the MRM. You can say what you want about Marxism not being associated with feminism, but feminism is certainly associated with Marxism.

    Feminist Jurisprudence;
    “Feminist legal theory is based on the belief that the law has been instrumental in women’s historical subordination. The project of feminist legal theory is twofold. First, feminist jurisprudence seeks to explain ways in which the law played a role in women’s former subordinate status. Second, feminist legal theory is dedicated to changing women’s status through a reworking of the law and its approach to gender.”

    Sound familiar?

    I don’t buy it for a second.

    • Kukla

      I just read into the article some more so disregard this comment please.

  • http://patricestanton.com/ wholebrainartist

    “A Marxist state would have a mandate to protect all…”

    Ah-h-h, to be an Idealist again…Your first mistake is believing The State (of any flavor) gives a flip about protecting anybody or any-thing except “its” further existence, its increased power (which means wealth with which to purchase loyal enforcers), and the loyalty of its “subjects” (by whatever means necessary) upon whom that enforcement falls.

    Hence the Framers’ inclusion of the 2nd amendment and my mental-preparation in the event of needing to exercise of my right of self-defense.

    Sorry, but the moment you gave-up your willingness (and the means-to-) defend/protect yourself and put your Faith in the State, you became a victim-in-waiting, whether it will come by the hand of a simple thug or an iron-fisted State-sponsored one.

    • Teerex

      An armed society is a polite society. Absolutely true. Which city in the U.S. has the most restrictive gun laws? Chicago. Which one has the highest murder rate? Yep.

      • JGteMolder

        I suppose the second answer is also supposed to be Chicago?

        The problem with that simplistic statement is the following: which country in the western world has the least restrictive gun laws? The US. Which country in the western world has the most amount of violent, especially gun-based, crime? That’s right, the US.

        • Raven01

          That assumes that crime relates to guns (possible tool of crime) more than with poverty/poor education(causes of crime). Or, rather causes of higher willingness to risk taking including crime to break out of poverty.
          Oh and for the record I believe the Swiss have a much higher per household gun ownership than the US without the crime rate.
          Every Swiss household is required by law to have military grade weapons on premises. Yet, Swiss kids are not shooting up schools.
          Blaming guns for anything at all is akin to blaming Ford for drunk drivers. or, even let’s say blaming men for rape as opposed to blaming rapists(whether they be male or female).

        • Teerex

          I believe the largest single predictor of violence and crime are the size of the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The larger the gap, the higher the crime.

  • MGTOW-man

    Good job “Free Human Being!” You are so right.

    I want to comment here too. But before I do, be reminded that… “[Socialism is fine...until you run out of another persons money.]” —The Iron Lady

    Look, life is not a bag of candy. Thus, not all of us will have equal amounts of sugar to gobble. This disparity is what drives us all…well most of us, er..some of us…to overcome the situation. That motivation is the best driver of a free world than any and all other possibilities combined.

    And we ARE becoming less free—precisely due to socialism.

    Socialism is destructive. It takes from those who earned it and deserve it, then gives it to those who do not…fomenting mediocrity and dependence.

    Feminism is so intertwined with socialism, that it is the same thing. A vote for a feminist is a vote for socialism. To tolerate feminist governance, is to allow socialism to permeate our lives.

    What gets me here is… why so many men out there say they are strict capitalists, yet sleep with socialists? (Sure, not all men are capitalists no more than all women are socialists…but the general mindset is a safe stereotype in this context).

    It is no secret that the early feminist mentor was Marx and all his cronies, who told the very few disgruntled women that if they are to …[basically, reach their goals], they will have to wrest with the idea of reproduction and other horrible unspeakables. Since then, with that advice in mind, at the hands of cruel and selfish feminists, we have witnessed so much decimation of nearly everything wholesome that used to be the cornerstones of our lives.

    There is no telling what is next! Even the feminists say they are just getting started. Haven’t we had enough of their “wisdom”…especially since their efforts have instead yielded superiority for women and misandry for men and boys?

    Another thing that gets me here is why are so many people refusing to lay blame for the destruction of our used-to-be, nature-directed society? Women, (particularly feminists), weakened, feminized “men”, and apathetic others ( including scores of men and women) have caused so many problems as a direct and indirect result of feminism’s intent to replace nature with something synthetic, short-sighted, selfish, and socialistic.

    Trillions of currency has been spent foolishly to undermine nature and replace it with something that is a lie, can’t work, and actually never will work in reality (especially if women keep accepting special preferential treatment in just about everything…all that does is highlight, remind, and reinforce our differences and how things would be if women were stripped of the numerous favors provided them.) Too, trillions more will have to be spent… and that is just to “achieve” it, saying nothing about maintaining it for all of eternity. Are we sure it is worth it…with so many other problems to fix…real problems that actually have nobility built right in?

    Sure, as the author said, men are oppressed too and socialism might alleviate much of it. BUT, all that comes with the package of socialism is not worth taking the bait. TOO MUCH DESTRUCTION!

    I am never in favor of letting a bunch of life-long poor decision-makers, misfit, misguided, oblivious women, uneducated whimpering beggars, and other TAKERS have what I earned and they did not. Their poor choices, (including women…since many of them CHOOSE to go it without men in their lives to help raise proper families and healthy-minded kids—-something that is a bad idea and which is supported by numerous professionals, commonsense, independent organizations, and scholarly studies (like the CDC, just to name only one), are what got them in their own messes. The rest of us are not responsible for their seemingly deliberate mistakes. Men owe women nothing here! Thus, our taxes should not be used to help fund the messes they create for themselves—regardless of why they do it.

    I also do not believe any government should have the right to force or enforce any system that plays to special interests. That said, people are responsible for themselves, including their own dreams, aspirations, and hopes. Said still another way: What if our government was suddenly similarly hijacked by those on the right and made to help proliferate and indoctrinate along lines of right-leaning ideas? Wouldn’t the liberals have a fit?

    Thus, government should stay out of all social changes and not be the sponsor, mediator, or liaison for any social changes whatsoever—regardless of how “helpful” such actions may seem to the ones who are responsible for much of the chaos in which we now are embedded.

    If we are going to choose which side the government jumps in on, then who gets to choose it? What about the other side, the other perspectives, the rest of us? Aren’ t they taxpayers too? You see, a can of worms is opened and nothing good will ultimately come of it.

    Thus, the Democratic (dummycrats) party is wrong! Our government is wrong for taking them to raise, and supporting their ideas, and forcing it all on everyone, about everything, everywhere.

    In short, say “no” to Obama, Hillary, and Pelosi, just as you would Alinsky, Soros, and Marx—and that which we should have done, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton. They are all the same.

    Sure, the conservative crowd has its hangups too but at least the thing they are not doing is taking deserved money and redistributing it to those who will take you down as soon as they can—WITH THAT MONEY.

    Vote for the lesser of the two evils.

  • Kris W

    The only way a MRM Communist/Marxist ideology could work is if the hardest, most skilled workers where given the leadership positions(to encourage a surplus of production and good will towards all men).

    But you would have to totally overhaul and modernize everything. The problem with Communism and Marxist thought is that it is rooted in a world that doesn’t exist anymore at all! That is why Feminists can make it the perfect puppet is because Marxism as it exists now is nonsensical as it has no grounding in modern reality at all. If you added a modern, Pro MRM take of Marxism founded from a purely rationalist perspective, it could easily spread like a wild fire.

    The easiest movement for the MRM to co-opt in it’s entirety would be Communism(as any arrangement with Progressives, Conservatives, neo Conservatives, Fundamentalists or Libertarians would be one sided and the MRM would just be pumped and dumped).

    Not to sound repetitive, it would take a major overhaul of Communist/Marxist Theories to make them conform to reality as it exists today.

    The sad truth is, Until we make the Personnel Political and the Political Personnel the MRM will get no where. Heck even the threat of such a course of action might be enough to get something done.

    As per the whole “Conservatives aren’t that bad”. Conservatives ARE traditionalists.

    Traditionalists prefer to enslave men directly while feminists prefer to use the state. Either way the same outcome is achieved for the Matriarchy. In order to understand these things we have to look at it from the female perspective.

    From the male perspective both seem radically different, from the female perspective though, not so different. Notice how the number one complaint from women about feminism is that it is making men angry at them and unwilling to have much to do with them. In that respect you could argue that feminism is indeed doing a service for men as it prevents our direct enslavement to the Matriarchy.

    • Teerex

      The wielding of big state power by Marxists, Fascists, Communists, Socialist, Feminists, Zionists, Corporatists, Democrats, Republicans, etc., etc., are what have caused somewhere between 150 and 200 million premature deaths (mostly men) in the last century, and that doesn’t even count the untold poverty and suffering it has caused. And all the while proclaiming benevolence and concern for the supposedly weak and the “victimized” people.

      I have a better idea. Little, or preferably NO government. Individual liberty. The non-aggression principle and respect of property rights. That’s all. None of these perverted and extremely dangerous ideologies could have taken hold (or survived on their own) without the collectivization by nation states and a cooperative centralized fiat banking structure.

      • Ex Machina

        I have to go with your assessment. As Communist is to female,so Anarchist is to male.

        The male mind craves room to stretch its legs,and the power to do what must be done when it must be done,by any means necessary.

        Unlike females, however, we realize there is a flipside to what we crave and the flipside of this is extreme danger and personal risks that fall on ourselves alone. That is why we construct laws,but only as much law as we need,erring on the side of less law whenever possible.

        Communism is highly popular among 20-something college kids who are truly unable to see the hundreds of millions of dead under its “loving” auspices as themselves and their families,but it is Anarchism that is the natural vehicle for men’s rights if it can be said to be anything.

        Men know that the law is a poor substitute for the sword,when protecting what is theirs by natural right.

        • Teerex

          At the end of the day, governments only have the one trick. Violence. And I’m personally sick of it being characterized as capable of anything but. I also think it’s time we step out of the fantasy world and realize that “institutions” such as central banks and governments do not even exist in reality. They are just small groups of people doing shitty things to the rest of us under the pretense of things like “knowing better” (the implied expertise of someone ordained by some phony academic priesthood) or “the greater good” (the theft of one’s property to give to a squeakier wheel).

          • Ex Machina

            “They are just small groups of people doing shitty things to the rest of us under the pretense of things like “knowing better” (the implied expertise of someone ordained by some phony academic priesthood) or “the greater good” (the theft of one’s property to give to a squeakier wheel).”

            I’ll agree with that all day long. And Obama’s the goddamn patron saint of those dicks. The embodiment of the “My Harvard education means you aren’t fit to inhabit the same planet as me” attitude you’re talking about.

            Of course, it’s funny as hell to me. They sent hundreds of guys like Obama to Georgia,back in the day, to colonize it. None of them reported back. Bluebloods, they call them. People to whom the society you kept was so important that they inbred themselves into effete human chihuahuas who die from a case of the sniffles. The master race…yeah right.

      • Kris W

        The reality is that is not going to happen. No matter how one wishes it, there will always be government. By ignoring practical solutions all you are doing is sticking your head into the ground and praying you don’t get kicked.

        The reason why the horrors of the 20th century happened had far more to do with neurological types then ideological types.

        I am sure there are some types that like no laws for whatever reason and prefer might makes right; but fair, reasonable law’s is what enables civil society. Respect of property rights comes from law’s. The whole concept of the “non-aggression principle” only leads to blood feuds.

        • Teerex

          It’s already happening. Nullification. People not voting. People shutting off their televisions. People homeschooling their kids. Legalizing marijuana. Rolling back gun control laws. Fighting internet surveillance and control measures. Auditing the Fed. A “no state” project already well underway. These are all on the increase and they all spell doom for the state in my opinion.

          What was missing in the past that is facilitating the movement away from government is unimpeded free speech, such as the forum we are on right here, and could not have happened in the past. The state will find opinions much harder to control than they have in the past. I personally think people underestimate the effect this will have, and has already had.

          Most libertarians theorize that the non-aggression principle and property rights could easily and expediently enforced by the individual (it already is in reality, with the biggest threat to property coming from the state, ironically) and insurance companies operating in a truly free market. Direct accountability for your good/bad behavior. Like everything else we do, and the best things we do already, none of this requires a government.

          • JGteMolder

            Far too simple way of looking at things; this is workable if you have nothing but individuals, not when what you are facing is collectives: that is both illegal gangs, and legal gangs (aka corporations).

            The moment you don’t need a gun to take a person’s property away, just enough money, people, time and effort; a single person on his own won’t last long.

            Just look at California a couple of years back; when they smart guys at the energy company decided to make more money by shutting down the energy and other nifty little number plays to drive prices up. People froze to death.

            They were stopped, by the government. How do you stop a company doing such things, if there’s no government, if there’s no way to redress these things? A posse, slaughter everyone inside and let god sort out who was the guilty party? What if the company employed some security with automatic weapons against posses? You’re going to bring grenades? Then the company will buy some tanks?

            It will very quickly devolve into either the rich, powerful, and numerous enough to complete suppress and exploit the weak and poor; or virtually all organizational structures disappear, reverting to every man for himself, individuals on an island; which ends anything bigger – no infrastructure; no public projects, nothing, no science that doesn’t have an immediate benefit.

            A government needs to be just strong enough to protect the weak from the strong and the rich, maintain infrastructure, and fund and organize public events. And no more.

  • ivy7om

    MRM has brought to light one of the fundamental problems with the “2 wing” system. That is, the idea that to stand for one cause, one must stand for an entire “wing”. To stand against one element of that “wing” is to stand against all its elements. One must be on one side or the other. But “right” and “left” do not really exist as “political forces” in the accepted sense. They are both part of a 16th century French system for categorizing policy. By identifying ourselves as “right” or “left”, we are allowing ourselves to be categorized by the system. Doing so served humanity well in the past. It allowed us to move forward, out of the age of open monarchy and into an era where decisions are made in a semi-democratic fashion. But now that so many of us are banding together, despite our drastically different views on other topics, we are demonstrating that this “right vs. left” system is outdated. A more responsible way would be to throw both terms out the window and approach every issue on an individual basis.

    • Teerex

      I would submit that we don’t have to be on one side or the other. Not at all. The two wings of the same bird of prey? The lesser of two evils is still evil, after all. I think our participation in non-participation is a very viable third choice. After all, we have already won the last “election” and will no doubt win with even bigger numbers during the next election. People are starting to turn away government with non-participation in “the affordable care act” and the ridiculous drug war by legalizing marijuana. People in greater numbers all the time are asserting their desire for less/no government. In spite of constant (and increasingly caricature-ish nature of) media cheerleading, people are starting to understand that they are just a bunch of thieves, autocrats and they are also very dangerous. Perhaps they are just unnecessary.

  • http://upstatenysocialists.webs.com Otaku155

    A True Socialist will reject feminism as classism and ideological hatred!

  • http://fathersforlife.org Walt

    Thanks for your article, Mateusz. It is perhaps a little late now to respond to it, but allow me to add my take, even if that means I have the last word in this discussion thread because no one else will read or worry about what I have to say.

    Your view of the connection between Marxism and feminism and Marxism in the MRM appears to omit something that neither Marx and Engels nor Lenin and Mao had any trouble addressing, something that the MRM is not focusing on at all, but that feminist theory, especially Marxist-feminism, very much focuses on.

    “Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics,” since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.”

    — F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff in
    The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
    Book review: http://fathersforlife.org/books/chrtrrev.html

    Mao Zedong did not forget that. It is a big part of what he taught and imposed, for which reason the redfems fell in love with his politics and with him as an ideal, so much so that, as Erin Pizzey reported a number of times, the feminists of the late sixties and early seventies had posters of him on their living-room walls and copies of ‘The Little Red Book’ on their coffee tables.

    The abolition of capitalism was not the only goal of communism. That was declared and made perfectly clear by Marx and Engels, by Lenin, and especially by Mao.

    You may have read and studied ‘The Little Red Book’, but for those who know little or nothing about it, it would be worth your while to have a look at Chapter 31, ‘Women’. It is very short and will take no more than perhaps a couple or three minutes to take in: http://art-bin.com/art/omao31.html

  • Ernesto_Guevara

    Just a comment on what Walt said: I don’t think the purpose of feminism is to “abolish gender difference”.

    If by “gender difference” we mean the natural differences between man and woman, then we men could be relieved: such an aim is impossible and ridiculous. If on the contrary it means to abolish the difference in rights and obligations, then we could be relieved too, as this is exactly what we want.

    Feminism is not so much what feminists say, but what they do. Feminist speech is contradictory, lacking factual base and a whole myth. It is in fact easy to disprove. It strength lies on prejudice and the harm it does through laws.

    Feminism should be unmasked on the left as a parasite of current class fights all over the world. Where money is taken away of workers’ pockets to be poured down into the financial system, feminism sucks the blood from the need of a radical spirit by turning fight against real oppressors into fight against imaginary oppressors.

    In this, feminism is much like fascism, racism, and all forms of prejudice and hate. As such it must be denounced.

    • http://fathersforlife.org Walt

      Ernesto, of course “such an aim is impossible and ridiculous,” but who said that feminism is rational, and of course, for that precise reason it must be denounced.

  • Ernesto_Guevara

    I am a Marxist-Leninist and consider myself an MRA, which btw is kind of a drama since, as stated here, all leftist organizations tend to tolerate and even promote feminism. Thinking with your own brain makes you take difficult directions, I think.

    I would recommend the writings of Esther Vilar “The Manipulated Man” and “The Polygamous Sex”, which are written from a philosophical materialistic perspective that -without getting into any political depth- still has a lot in common with the base of Marxism.

    I think the problem with leftist men is more or less the problem of most men: they have great difficult in seeing themselves as oppressed, maybe more than other men since they are always focused on other people.

    The defeat of many Left movements, especially in countries in which being a communist conveys a great deal of risk, forces some sort of shift on the focus: Feminism is a safe and not too complex way of being “leftist”. Unlike Marxism, which implies some coherence and theory, Feminism allows almost any kind of contradictory blabbery as long as you defend women. Besides, none has ever been kidnapped / tortured / killed for being a Feminist.

    In short, for anyone attracted by some “revolutionary” image of him/herself, feminism offers a sort of cheap “leftist” flavor which is difficult to resist.

    The best side of Marxism in its relationship with anti-feminist speech is that true Marxism is based on factual analysis, it rejects idealism and explains social phenomena on its real forces.

    Marxism nevertheless suffered a great defeat with Stalin’s politics and the murder of its highest theoretician Leo Trotsky. We can say no real Communist state has taken place yet, only very misshaped and threatened versions of it.

    On the other hand, neo-conservative and capitalist society have done nothing for Men’s rights. We are trapped between the old-fashioned traditional model -which made men respectable slaves- and today’s reality of some watered-down cultural post-modern bullshit that is sold as “leftism” while hard economy privileges are firmly held by the elite, means of production owners… and of course their lazy wives.

  • John Smith

    Bertrand Russell – “I dislike capitalism, because it favours exploitation, and socialism because it isn’t democratic”. “Most people would rather die, that think, many of them do”.

    Buckminster Fuller – (sometime in the 70′s) “We have enough resources and technology to feed the world, what is lacking, is the political will to do so”.

    Ayn Rand – “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
    (I do not need the limits of Objectivism pointed out to me, it has flaws and advocates insane selfishness, and unregulated everything).

    Surely the only thing to have, (as politics, like sex/gender, and many other things are on continuums) is use a blend of the best ideas from all systems.

    Looked at objectively, most Western Democracies have elements of all kinds of systems;
    Anarchic: (most households are somewhat anarchic, if they have balanced parenting and debates about what to do at the weekend for example).
    Capitalistic: (it has become the leading form of Economic doctrine, but does allow plenty, enterprise, distribution and disenfranchisement being the biggest problems).
    Socialist: (Systems like the NHS or nationalised water/gas or other resources, this is open to sponging and over use, Tragedies of the Commons).
    Totalitarian: (Religion, special interest groups [that become supremacist, a serious likelihood with most, sadly], terrorist ideologies, demagogues etc)

    Acknowledging we’re socially hierarchical mammals and that we defer to various others in differing circumstances, that no-one is actually in control, of say nature or politics, would help massively.
    Ditching things like cultural relativism, some ways of living, are demonstrably better, not without their own problems, but clearly better for people.

    Ask yourself; would you rather being arguing with Feminists over laws in a complex society or having to make a case for the use of Toilets and their infrastructure in India where the Prime-minister Dixit asked people to pray to help the flood victims?

    They all seem to work synergistically, and where any one of them them gains too much power, or exerts too much influence societies (bizzarre flexible non-entities that they are). Start to collapse.

    The admission of bigger problems: Climate Change, Over-Population, Bat-Guano-Bonkers places like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan ( where babies are given away on TV http://www.christianpost.com/news/pakistani-tv-host-gives-away-babies-live-on-air-calls-it-real-islam-101702/), The Israel/Palestine state of affairs, all having mobile armies, and possibly the wish to gain Nuclear Arms, admittedly these are mostly Religious/Commie places, that might well remain unsolved due the irrational source for the conflicts.

    I’ve said it many times, and will again the world is a playground, where the kids have guns and armies, mostly arguing over who stole their imaginary friend’s bear, and was rude to their sister last week. Who are told they’re not allowed to be human, from birth and as a result are really messed up, and cause huge problems.

    Maybe the Human Race will pull through, perhaps if the tide of irrational self-interest is stopped, but I hold out no hope, 99.8% of all species that ever lived; are extinct, and they lacked the capacity for self-annihilation.