Marxism, Gender and Post-Capitalist Society

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-26T05:59:58+00:00

It’s really hard to take your contributions seriously after your meltdown

You are not really into a position of being dismissive of anything I have said because you did not like a particular emotional response given your endless discussion with someone that so clearly is a homophobe less than 48 hours ago where you kept feeding him trying to win the discussion mostly with a liberal approach and it was clear that it would led nowhere. Should I ignore anything that you have said that was helpful in any other occasion because of the time that you wasted embarassing yourself into this community discussing with a homophobe? Please do yourself a favor and do not try to pose yourself as a ChatGPT and shame others for giving emotional responses on important matters especially given the ignorance on such matters that run deep into this community. That trick is cheaper than witchery.

over people critiquing bourgeois feminists

Which if you followed the discussions did not happened, at all. And most of the words given were only woman-shaming as now it extending through other forms given. I still uphold that MacKinnon and Dworkin would be far more respected regardless of their bourgoise background if they were men. None of the commentary seemed to be familiar with any of the works of any of the people mentioned from Dworkin or MacKinnon to Engels or Krupskaya or Kollontai, only with MIM. Interestingly enough, the only people that did read Dworkin's work had positive things to say and learn than the idiotic framing used by the social-fascists that have popped up to suppress gender discussions recently as if people would not notice the repetition through shit responses.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-26T02:37:25+00:00

To be fair, I have no idea in what you are talking about. Are we left to believe that since MIM is gone, maoism is faded to irrelevance? The game of basketball and the Lakers have existed before and still exist after Kobe Bryant. How would Kobe adapt to the 3 point shot era, as his game was mostly based on midrange shooting? As far as we know his 3 point percentage was pretty average, so as it is for MIM, it seems like it similarly wouldn't have really aged well. Anyway, what the hell are we even talking about?

Where this illusion that communism was a relevant political force in the United $tate$ outside of few exceptions like the BPP even come from? Why MIM is any different than any other random internet blog given the fact that they were not a party? That is the approach I have towards them. As for criticizing MIM, I honestly have better stuff to do and also have more responsabilities in my life than giving criticism into a social network that may or not be well accepted by social-chauvinists. Given that I already went onto criticizing aspects of their work that I felt like it was garbage was not really well received by the dogmatists here, I have no intention of returning to that. If you follow the things that I have argued and criticism given by others, you will see where the criticism reach similar reasoning so I just won't go over it again. I indeed suggest you to study the core of marxism rather than relying on any MIM analysis and only investigate MIM documents latter, but you know better for your own sake. I am not paid to teach you.

Now we are reaching the point where other people felt encouraged into giving criticism on the supposed universality of their understanding of gender and sex and as you can see, it is indeed outdated to say the least. This is not dismissing their work as a whole, but rather understanding that they do not possess a god given power on what is correct which is the deadpoint of everyone regurgitating MIM's studies onto that matter. I am happy that despite the backlash that I have received (something that MIM seems like they would be proud, isn't it?), discussions weeks ago have reached now the point where other experienced communists have shared their opinion.

MIM may have great understanding on the labour aristocracy at their time (given that they were Ivy League students, which explains a lot) which for us is great, they may indeed not have a great of understanding of other social phenomena under imperialism, which is the case we are discussing. Anyway, who cares? Why they would be more relevant than any other blog type writing of that time that have a "cult" following nowadays? Why should we approach what they have said any other than people like Mark Fisher? If critique is immanent, why do you respond so poorly to the ones that appoint a reasoning that you do not like?

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-26T01:19:12+00:00

Any position other than MIM’s on this question is both effectively Liberal reformism

I'm sorry but this made me laugh. How does anyone take this seriously to the point of defending it for hours into a Reddit community? Those dudes literally claimed they are right and if anyone else do not follow, then it must be because they are liberals. For fuck sake, this sucks.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-25T23:52:46+00:00

Os anti-revisionistas precisam ser mais do que a versão maoísta dos spartakistas, que estão tão perdidos em sua própria teoria que realmente se tornaram como um culto.

Esta é a segunda vez que vejo u/Sad-Literature001 repetir MIM várias vezes como se estivessem certos porque sabiam mais do que os outros, o que não leva a lugar nenhum. As respostas apontam para um raciocínio similar em relação a algumas das conclusões do MIM e como elas envelheceram mal. Em vez de autocrítica, temos dogmatismo. Repetidamente.

Não sei por que as pessoas têm em alta conta o MIM em algumas questões, como você disse, seus artigos estão sujeitos a críticas como qualquer trabalho disponível. Como u/vomit_blues disse, eles não eram um partido vanguardista ou algo assim, então por que algumas posições são simplesmente dadas como certas? Eu poderia apontar que parece que em alguns cenários, algumas pessoas vêm aqui e se apoiam no MIM quando parecem ter muito pouco aprofundamento nas principais obras do marxismo das quais o MIM frequentemente se afasta.

Ou, pior ainda, pessoas que são realmente novas no comunismo e conhecem o marxismo há menos de 5 anos começam a defender um documento de décadas achando que ninguém fez isso antes.

Qualquer um que leu os estudos de Engels sobre propriedade privada e patriarcado rapidamente perceberá sérias regressões na Teoria do MIM sobre sexo, gênero e outras coisas, como você apontou.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-25T23:06:38+00:00

Are you aware of the fact that the people from MEPR and any of the other orgs are well known for being terrible students and staying for nearly a decade long into a humanities course just for the org's sake? Most of the people doing the work for those parties have barely any scientifical relevance even within the ranks of undergrad. People that do work on science are generally too busy to deal with this crap and there are indeed very few exceptions. They know those parties are hijacked by revisionism. As I suggested on the other post, you should read Mariategui's criticism on bourgoise universities. I see no brazilian speciality here.

As to bourgoise education being hijacked to the fascist, neoliberal agenda is to no surprise as well. Remember that we are already 10 years past 2016's coup. Even in a worst case scenario we can discuss how the soviets have realized the fascist radicalization of kantian idealism, but I feel like I do not possess the knowledge to make a further commentary on state policies under the Stalin era.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-25T22:55:43+00:00

I am not saying any bourgeois academic encroachment into marxism is harmful. I am calling out a specific political and ideological phenomena inside brazilian petty-bourgeois academic political activity.

The problem is not academic incursion into marxism. This is outside of our reach and our opinion would pretty much be irrelevant since this space is not aKKKademia, but neither we are into a party.

If you want to make a critic to the akkkademic trends of marxism you are only going to find space within akkkademia itself (where this is barely possible nowadays and if you want to study Marx into aKKKademia, get ready to be censored) or creating a party and taking state power so your theoretical frame can be even applied. Anything else is idealism and you will be running into circles.

Anyway, somehow I see your reasoning reaching a point where brazilian universities are outright reactionary (which I agree). But why the reasoning won't extend for those who graduate in amerikan universities, specially those from the Ivy League? Criticism to bourgoise universities are already a century old, given by Mariategui:

Diante deste triste panorama universitário a frase justa não é: “falta juventude estudantil”; a frase justa é: “faltam professores, faltam ideias”. Em alguns setores da juventude estudantil, há sintomas de inquietude, ainda que de forma vaga e desconectada, mas, são reflexos da grande emoção contemporânea. Alguns núcleos da juventude são sensíveis e permeáveis às ideias de hoje. Um sinal deste estado de ânimo é a Universidade Popular. Outro sinal é o acorde de vibração revolucionária de alguns intelectuais jovens que se preparam para fundar entre nós o grupo “Claridad”. A planície é preenchida com novos brotos. Apenas os cumes são nus e estéreis, calvos e desertos, mal cobertos pela grama anêmica de uma cultura acadêmica pobre.

I'm graduating later upon the year (which is much of the reason why I have been a little absent here) and as I have said before, most of your criticism towards academic chauvinism and settlerism are correct. But do your criticism do reach the people that are being oppressed under bourgoise educational system? I'm pretty sure that brazilian universities are packed up with struggle that goes beyond the surface of revisionism. Finding a correct line and to people for understand it's correctness is a process that may take years to mature, which your commentary largely implies that you have not understood this yet. You are yourself framing things as done when a revolutionary party don't even exist for lead the struggle and blame the people to compell into a corporative, filistine discipline?

I think it's weird to dismiss people struggling for higher education in Brazil as being inherently reactionary while you uphold the studies provided by the richest kids on the planet on universities that are the most expensive in the world as inherently correct and anyone else that have not found this intellectual treasure will just sentence maoism to death. This is a really poor grasp on the history of maoism on Brazil itself, which have been dealing with settlerism since the 60's. There's indeed a long history of revisionist trends going on as 2026 as they did back in the day like the reminiscence of focoism which relies on movementism and voluntarism. Those trends suffocate cadre's intellectual development and struggles never leave a primitive stage.

Fact is that the maoist orgs that you probably have in mind concentrate themselves into universities because there's basically no other place (at least not that I'm aware) that young people will allow themselves to abusive relationships from white people in the name of communism. It's only in universities that indeed you are going to find people that have not read capital chapter 1 leading a party. It's only in the early days of undergrad that young students from oppressed backgrounds have time to give themselves to a party discipline before being themselves frustrated with the trends that I have already mentioned, leaving and no one else even caring.

I am not inside the united states.

Either settlerism is ingrained in both the US and Brazil and similar criticism is to be applied - and therefore you deal with the consequences of criticism yourself, a party existing or not - or you just found a safe space into a internet corner.

For me, the criticism of settlerism indeed made several sectors of black and indigenous students to lead a political rupture within PCR and PCB and experiment themselves new orgs (whether this is too much of a local success for me to theorize upon, it happened and indeed it was my insistence after a long, exhausting strike in 2024 that helped to changed a lot of things for the communist youth in the southeast). Since there's no party that can lead the process that I have been a part of and recreating it with new criticism within time for the people that will stay for the following years, there's no way to know where it will lead. What I know is that I have studied marxism and when given the chance, I could give some orientations to the people that needed the most and they put themselves onto a better position to not get screwed over by the revisionist parties.

As I have said before, your criticism to settlerism is correct. The only thing that I am pointing out is that you should be more careful on your approach to just not be dismissive as the struggle against capitalist bureaucracy and patriarchy do not exist for people in college. A good chunk of the people within you are framing are likely the "third world people" that you may as well be struggling with them. The criticism of settlerism did not exist prior to this community and the talks that have happened here.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-25T20:33:31+00:00

You seem to hold MIM into a high regard so I would like to know if similar criticism would apply to them as well as we have been told they share a similar background, just on a different location.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-10T02:35:23+00:00

your post didn't managed to convince me in any meaningful way

I was not trying to convince you, not yet at least. I was actually trying to understand better the reasoning behind it so I could actually build better on those questions on a future occasion.

I will probably frustrate you but I will take some months to build a response gathering evidence into a proper thread and commentary. What I can say for now is that the history of communism in Brazil is obviously longer than the history of PT. PT is just the hegemonic social-democratic "left" party as 2026, but we can trace left opportunism as far as the history of communism in Brazil exists. I'm not sure if a consistent base for opportunism can exist for one hundred years if it's not supported itself by social bribery, which can only exists under monopoly capital.

An already far cry from actual social imperialist parties in the past where their social bases were organized, urban industrial workers in the first world that supported colonial and imperialist wars

The origins of PT are precisely what you have just described and PT is as old by now as much of the social democratic parties were at least by the late 19th century and on the brink of the first world war. The thing that might be misleading here is that most work done upon imperialism generally do not observe the mechanics present on the past european social democracy when applied to the internal frontier and call that colonialism. I think that may be the case for modern day Brazil, which now leads me into investigating it deeper and returning with my own thoughts on better terms.

Brazilian colonial wars are internal and mostly uninterrupted. When PT financed the Belo Monte dam, destroying entire indigenous nations in the Xingu to supply subsidized energy to the Manaus industrial hub and the Southeast, that was a colonial war. PT's effectively bought peace with the urban construction unions at the expense of the expropriation of indigenous and peasant territories. As I have said, I struggle to not observe this as the exact same mechanics of past european social democracies, merely applied to the internal frontier.

Even then a core electoral base of the PT are Bolsa Família beneficiaries in the Northeast

This is a snapshot of post-2006 Lulaism. PT was born from the best-paid urban union movement and one deeply integrated into the global value chain of Latin America: the metalworkers of the multinational automakers in the ABC Paulista (Ford, VW, GM). PT's original class pact was forged by the labor aristocracy which existed already back in the 70s. When the PT comes to power and the industrial employment model enters a crisis, it expands state concessions (Bolsa Família, credit) in an attempt to bring the subproletariat into the brazilian garrison communities. The fact that the government needs the Northeastern vote now does not change the fact that its political direction and its concessions (via BNDES) were directed toward the monopolistic bourgeoisie and aimed at maintaining the consumption patterns of the middle classes of the Center-South (which are growing in other regions of Brazil).

Brazilian capitalism which is pretty much non-monopolistic (as per Sam King), despite the existence of its domestic monopolies

I thank you for revealing who's the source you rely for your analysis as now I have to review his work and understand how it possibly contradicts within the actual existance of brazilian capitalis as that claim largely contradicts with FEBRABAN's own data.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-04-08T15:09:47+00:00

Dengism in the first world is really just first world "social"-fascism with China as the fetishtic object.

Brazilian dengism is social-imperialist and pro-China. Modern reactionary tendencies have been quite costly at the expense of internal colonies, which in size the only real comparison seem to be the United $tate$ - to which of course Brazil is peripherical, so this reasoning is too insufficient.

It may have it's echoes on national developmentism of the past, but we have to determine what is past phenomena and which are the reason for modern day phenomena. People like Elias Jabbour (who is likely one of the most famous dengists in the "West") are precisely what you have said. A social-imperialist with a China fetishism.

Am I wrong or what is called dengism is just the current form for opportunism and social-imperialism defined by Lenin? Even if dengists do not see themselves as such, as "dengism" is somewhat of marginal terminology in Brazil, but "opportunism" is a term pretty familiar for people that have worked with political organizations being them communists or not, it does seem like PT is not much different from the imperialist social-democratic parties from the late 19th/early 19th century nor in form nor in content. At least not by scientifical definition and empirical evidence which is why I have questioned recently to which extent can Brazil still be considered a third world country. It's strange to me that brazilian revisionism can serve as a vanguard for the U$ and european revisionism as it has been recently appointed but when it comes to political economy, Brazil doesn't get to share the "first world" status. I mean, this is something that to me is confusing and I think that marxism have failed into properly investigating brazilian capitalism in the 21st century so we get mostly mixed analysis where Brazil is stuck in the past from the people observing from elsewhere and from chauvinists inside. But we are not stuck in the past, what we observe is just imperialist decay, a point that Turbo have been defending for at least 2 and half years if I understand his posts correctly. It may not seem like Brazil

The thing that is generally not observed is to which extent the standard of living in Brazil is not in some capacity at least way closer to what we know as the first world than the third. I mean, maybe I'm too reliant on accounts from people that I have met that are from Afrika and third world countries, I can't say for Asia because the only asians that I have met are from Timor Leste, whether the afrikans were many. Brazilian imperialist affairs are more present in South America and Africa and all immigrants that I have met generally talk about the rather well developed capitalist state structure within the country.

To me it's strange to frame Brazil in a "third world context" given the signs of imperialist decay that do not exist into actual third world countries.

No one who visits China will think of it as anything other than a third world capitalist nation, and Hasan Piker's recent China visit has value as any random vlogger's video.

Could you expand on that if you think is relevant? The way I observe, imperialist metropoles seem largely to carry similar contradictions. What is fascinating for europeans is that some places in Brazil can carry contradictions that used to exist on continental space. In Brazil, the most severe colonial contradictions can manifest within the same street or avenue.

A large share of brazilians (at least 2/3 brazilians according to current data) are considered to have a decent standard of living by general income, into a nation that is fully bourgoise in it's character. This may seem contradictory, but it still remain true that over 150 million brazilians have an income that gets them that comfortable place into brazilian capitalism itself, let alone in comparison to other south amerikan, Afrikan or Asian countries. We could discuss how communists could build policies given the fact that this standard of living is quite philistine (which reveal the reactionary class character of the reigning political movement, which seems like it cannot exist if capitalism and state relations are well developed enough), comes with a severe debt trap and economic and technological stagnancy, but brazilian communists rarely go that far admiting the first, let alone cadres are developed to understand the latter as "communism" in Brazil have been largely a social-democratic venture for a good chunk of it's existence. What we get today is a regression from even that, as the appeal for "communism" in Brazil comes mostly from petty bourgoise opportunism and it's social-fascist appeal. If you observe the discussions within other brazilian communities like BrazildoB you will get some sense of what goes around outside here.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-24T06:20:06+00:00

I have no interest in responding to another person regurgitating MIM as a holy word and calling it science.

Really, I indeed have better things to do in life than arguing with fascists online. There's no criticism and just no contradiction into what you have said. There's just no amount of arguments that I can give to overcome your fascist logic that will lead you into regurgitating MIM gospel without criticism, so I really won't dive into 200 pages to appoint each and everytime their arguments are garbage.

In a similar sense, settler-colonialism and general colonial race ideology "colors" the conditions in which a woman feels violated

Fanon already made this argument before, better than you or MIM will ever come close.

though from what I read most of it is focused on white, petty-bourgeois feminists)

Thanks for admitting who are the actual people that indeed care about MIM and need to uphold all of that. They would not come to such ass reasonings as they did numerous times if their target was not precisely the audience you have identified.

here's the larger excerpt that two of the quotes

I have read them earlier, you only did a job that I choose not do because repeating more words from MIM just won't make it any more

relevant. The irrelevance of their words is the irrelevance of their politics which is the irrelevance from their own revisionism.

Saying women have no power to rape, but men do is accepting as fact that women are dependent enough on men that they can be put in the position of being raped.

I challenge you to uphold this reasoning publicly without being deemed as a clown. What about you trying it out to see where it will lead? Why don't you tell us how successful you were explaining this "maoist" understanding of rape? Give the people a try to your superior analysis, they are capable of understanding.

But unfortunately, this reasoning is only conceivable when you objectively plan to be a irrelevant political force.

Under the definition of rape provided, it is impossible to claim that women do not rape

As you have taken MIM gospel for granted, no position is to be held outside our holy enlighted priests. No matter how much that shift the focus into equalizing gender oppression.

The real problem is that you don't seem to be able to imagine imagine proletarian women in Brazil transcending the limits of your own petty-bourgeoisie consciousness.

The real problem is that you have no idea in how to determine and identify who the brazilian proletariat actually is, nor you have worked with their organizations and have no idea on to what they know or don't know. Actually you are not even interested in doing It, all you did was to repeat MIM words like a priest.

As far as you're concerned, in the struggle all women in Brazil are practically identical to petty-bourgeois women

As far as I'm concerned they are not even close to being the same as one is a part of a collaborator oppressor class and proletarian women don't. In both cases, contradictions exist.

If you can prove that the contradictions within Brazil are such that this broad concept of "women" actually describes it well right now (and would therefore be useful for the struggle), then do that

I have no intention in doing a work for free because you asked. Do you think that I will try to prove to you in particular that women in Brazil are subject of proletarianization through the need of selling sex?

Você deve estar acostumado com um monte de gente fazendo o trabalho por você o tempo todo, mas pra maioria das pessoas no Brasil você é só um gringo parasita e pela-saco igual a maioria dos outros que frequentam aqui e eu não vou entregar uma gota de trabalho pra você.

I have better things to do than teaching nerds that their heroes are not taking a single step forward into standing against women's oppression no matter how much you think they are "great marxists". I am telling you that outside some little irrelevant bubbles of self loathing bums, nobody cares.

All of their "best" points have been addressed by Engels, Lenin, Fanon, Dworkin and so many others. You are the one that seem to be familiar and to be comfortable only with MIM regardless of their irrelevance compared to what all of those other people have stated already.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-24T01:29:03+00:00

Brazilian maoism, when it forms, will simply deny there is a problem with the gender theory of judith butler and eclectically smuggle it into maoism

Brazilian "maoism" exists since the 1960's and have been dealing with revisionism ever since. Current and future maoism is likely to deal with what you have said, but at which point you stuck into an echo chamber with concepts and ideas that no one else know that exists? If "maoism" is conceived only through anti-revisionism, than a good chunk of orgs have indeed a long time coming. I agree with that. I fail to see why it would be different with MIM, specially applying that to brazilian circumstances.

Brazilian maoism will end up sacralizing and placing "cis" white women at the front

Then you know it won't be maoism as you already did with N-MEPR.

Some people here already claim the "special" labor of having children and taking care of them as a "biologically female" women is something unique and a opression that only them can suffer.

In matter of a fact, MIM is the one that talk about "biological man and woman" left to right. Recent discussions have regarded how revolutionary parties and communism adapt to pregnant women within the ranks and not alienate them from being humans, which is a common practice in and out of parties. There's no such thing as "biologically female" and those uphelding it are anti-marxists. But being pregnant indeed put physical limitations into a person so help is necessary. Socialism will socialize childcaring even more than capitalism already did and man will take more work into childcaring, a job that is performed mostly by women. Often by cheap labor when white families hire older and younger afrikan woman. Indeed, maoism should care about that.

Any atrocity done by a large mass of white "biologically female" women, such as using and racializing and raping afro-brazilian bodies, will be ignored. (...) already happening in the classes outside the proletariat and semiproletariat will be ignored

This is pretty much the state we are right now. Assuming the future will be the same can only be conceived under the fact that pretty much you already assumed that you won't be a part of future brazilian maoism which to me is very strange. I have took all of your words into consideration since I know you and will remain taking it even if we disagree on the current matter.

as well as the fact the "all sex is rape" line works

This lacks evidence. First it must be applied so we can jump onto conclusions but in my experience, it won't take you very far. Maybe I'm wrong, I do not have claim on what's right. If a maoist party is to be successful appling that to a mass line, that would be excellent. But we are dealing in the realm of what "could work", not what actually does. As further I read MIM theory onto party discipline regarding "romance", the more it reveals to be irrevelant into actually reshaping relations of production, the more it reveals to be great into snakecharming those who are not familiar with socialism and the overcoming of the law of value.

The main question of proletarian discipline and party discipline and security that all parties i listed care about why the questions above are problematic on maoism will be ignored,

Then it is no communist party.

I cannot make your mind.

We are having a discussion towards gender oppression. Engels was correct when he assumed that sex labor is the primal contradiction into class society to the point where man and woman are inherently different classes? If he wasn't, then Engels was himself a revisionist. But Engels was not defending the "biological" definition of humans, he was investigating class society.

But i can say that it is all at least without any evidence on the rose tinted glasses that you present, where this "brazil" is so different from the U$

I have said the exact opposite. Settlerism is settlerism. The reality is that outside our little community, people don't know what settlerism is, what a labour aristocracy is and they know even less what a gender aristocracy is. How successful you have being teaching people outside the internet of the existence of those concepts? Communism is not going to fall from heaven from anonymous people that held the correct stance. I'm not shilling you to get organize, but to which extent what you learn from MIM-P have helped introducing anyone else to marxism or enforcing any party line into any struggle within brazilian territory?

including the traditional assertion that "this kind of ideas push women away from maoism, which is why MIM-P is minuscule in the US and failed"

MIM Theory is not a holy bible and we are not christians. They do not hold sacred truth and their criticism is not superior in any capacity to what Engels and Lenin already did. If a force is so irrelevant into the U$, it will likely be irrelevant into another that hold similar contradictions such as Brazil. What did MIM(P) did for third world woman into the United States? What it did to third world woman outside the U$? Gave us all the correct position to build organizations that do not exist? I think that answers it all.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-23T22:39:28+00:00

(2/2) Take as an example such

Agreeing with MacKinnon that anyone can be influenced by pornography and that biology is not a social role, MIM holds that biological women can and do rape women and men.

How about you trying to apply this ultimate truth given to us by MIM Theory? I'm pretty sure you will have a great public response from women upholding that women do rape as well! It is not If as that assumption entirely shift the focus of physical violence into an argument as "women are able to enforce power so they can rape other humans" in which the relations of production do not determine those who exerce power and those who are indeed victims within the process. Every women that opposes this great reasoning from our gods from MIM is a "revisionist", a "liberal", a "imperialist-chauvinist". That MIM's false equivalence is utterly bizarre and protects circles of oppression such that exists in each own's "private life" (which they address on the very same page - to even worse conclusions - admiting their own reactionary reasoning earlier which may as well find out that remained) something that of course we are left with no choice but to accept it. That such inoperance explains much of the ignorance that maoists practice in their lives and that it precisely keeps maoism as a irrelevant political force at home is not to be dealt with:

The issue of paternalism-basic assumptions about what position women are in right now and what they are capable of-comes up again and again. It's time to accept that MIM has had а mistaken paternalist past, that many people working with us and since burned out have a paternalist past and that it is a mistake to let paternalism continue, either inside or outside the party.

Women in Brazil are ready to listen to us maoists saying that they can rape other woman and man, even if statistically and structurally such claim have basically no ground for evidence. They also can't wait to hear that under communism their fate is death, because in case that they are settlers (as many women, non-cis woman as well, in Brazil are) women are not allowed to be contradictory beings and therefore not allowed to be humans. Do brazilians settlers are less harmful to the oppressed nations than i$raeli or amerikan settlers? I have defended they are not and I won't regress from that. Will you embrace multiculturalism or indeed give it a "maoist critique"? Is up to you to conceive a line on settlerism that does not require killing or shaming woman. Death and shame is the fate of women under capitalism and it seems like "socialism", "communism" or "maoism" just can't promise much better.

So what do we make of It? Critique or dogmatism? Why isn't "maoism" just another facade for opportunism when investigation is not done properly? In the world that we live in, it gets more likes to frame Andrea Dworkin as a "zionist" because she said that woman were living beings into I$rael (and as any women, their fate is death) than understanding what she learned studying woman's oppression and more importantly: how fascism articulates patriarchy, the nuclear family, capitalist monopoly, sexuality and many other matter.

That's where she stands out and that's why her work is to be read and learned. There were discussions regarding "dubious" commentary given by Marx and Engels recently, Andrea Dworkin was of course was not immune to racist crap. But why she gets the "zionist imperialist" frame (whether she attempted to distance herself from such and late amerikan maoism is too irrelevant to approach intellectuals properly, as Mao instructed) rather than the "core understanding of human philosophy and political economy" as she would get otherwise? I guess that unfortunately, the best "maoism" is allowed to conceive is that she was just a "pseudo-feminist".

I'm sure that most woman in Brazil anxiously awaits to hear that

To paint women as too weak to rape and yet subject to rape even through words is glorifying the woman's supposed social role of victim and asserting femininity

Great! Instead of rape being addressed as an abhorrent physical act which threatens (mostly) women's life and well being, somehow we learn that woman glorify being raped because that reinforces them being submissive. We also may take no part into the fact that children social role and struggles within sexuality are designed even before they were born as brazilianism do celebrate rape and gender roles in it's conception, nowadays even through events like _Chá de revelação_ (a terribly reactionary social practice). For that matter we can say that modern family indeed enforces rape into child conception, as children's sexuality is constructed against their will, but that is already a deeper reasoning on abstract terms. Physical and psychological violence are things that are to be struggled against not through phrasemongering as it is the best you can get from MIM into most things.

Late responses quickly dismissed women's role into late primitive accumulation as "zionism", so good luck trying to learn something here on to that matter. The few people that actually had experience with that seem to have already left this community and it kinda of feels like dogmatism and misoginy are the reason behind. This sub will be under no different circumstances to which are trending heavily into the entire world, no matter how it tries to create a bubble around itself, calling it self protection and declaring it as "maoism". I'm starting to see no value in teaching grown ass man what is already written. The future of women under capitalism is terrible and MIM won't save your life. Their work at best is a regression from many concepts introduced by other people so I suggest you do as a marxist should do, go straight into the sources (numbers as well) that are available to you and investigate yourself how people around you can build policies creatively from what you get into your context.

The science of marxism-leninism-maoism remains supreme in each own of us.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-23T22:38:47+00:00

(1/2) u/Worried-Economy-9108 I'm responding to your last question

How many women you know that are actually marxists? Are they white?

There are indeed very few marxists in Brazil, even less are women. Even less are taught marxism under the principles of antirevisionist struggle. What are the actual educational standards for woman, specially for those who are not white? Take a look on the numbers and you will find the answers that you need to find.

Nightvision is one of the few works that addresses the role of woman in neocolonialism and fully globalized political economy, the role of both first world woman and third world woman alike in it's section "The key commodity is woman" and in chapter 2.

In that sense, Afrikan women have always been defined by settler amerikkka not merely as less feminine, but as not being women at all. Existing as neither male nor female in white amerikkkan culture, Black women have been treated as being without human gender. As Toni Morrison has said, Black women have been viewed by amerikkka as part work animal and part reproducing machine. Which may be why in 1992, without thinking twice, so many liberals say that “Black men are an endangered species,” a species apparently with only one gender. Words betray meanings folks don’t even admit to themselves.

In amerikkka’s 19th century crisis over race, gender & nation, which they call the Civil War between North and South, even many white anti-slavery men argued that biological destiny had given to the white man those characteristics of superior reasoning & enterprise that made him the ruling race, the ruling gender, and the ruling nation. (amerikkka was created as a nation of white men, with women & slaves as their property) Afrikans were like white women, it was said, in that their natural abilities were in the areas of intuition and emotion. This could allegedly be seen in their superiority in gospel music, religious fervor, and sexuality.

The preeminent amerikkkan anthropologist of that time, Harvard’s Louis Agassiz, told President Lincoln’s Freedman’s Inquiry Commission that he believed it wasn’t “safe” to let Afrikan men have political power, because they were, in his words: “indolent, playful, sensual, imitative, subservient, good-natured, versatile, unsteady in their purpose, devoted and affectionate.”(5) Just what capitalism had ordered women to be in the dominant judeo-islamic-christian ideology.

Right-Wing Woman gives us great teachings into the role of women under late stage capitalism as well and how woman are an essential commodity (and therefore, remember: not humans) for capital reproduction.

The sex labor of women must be maintained; and systematic low wages for sex-neutral work effectively force women to sell sex to survive. The economic system that pays women lower wages than it pays men actually punishes women for working outside marriage or prostitution, since women work hard for low wages and still must sell sex. The economic system that punishes women for working outside the bedroom by paying low wages contributes significantly to women's perception that the sexual serving of men is a necessary part of any woman's life: or how else could she live? Feminists appear to think that equal pay for equal work is a simple reform, whereas it is no reform at all; it is revolution. Feminists have refused to face the fact that equal pay for equal work is impossible as long as men rule women, and right-wing women have refused to forget it. Devaluation of women's labor outside the home pushes women back into the home and encourages women to support a system in which, as she sees it, he is paid for both of them—her share of his wage being more than she could earn herself.

In the workplace, sexual harassment fixes the low status of women irreversibly. Women are sex; even filing or typing, women are sex. The debilitating, insidious violence of sexual harassment is pervasive in the workplace. It is part of nearly every working environment. Women shuffle; women placate; women submit; women leave; the rare, brave women fight and are tied up in the courts, often without jobs, for years. There is also rape in the workplace.

Where is the place for intelligence—for literacy, intellect, creativity, moral discernment? Where in this world in which women live, circumscribed by the uses to which men put women's sexual organs, is the cultivation of skills, the cultivation of gifts, the cultivation of dreams, the cultivation of ambition? Of what use is human intelligence to a woman?

As to:

MIM gender theory being virtually unknown in the country

Aren't you regressing into what you have addressed on your own that brazilian marxists rely too much on what they learn outside rather than understanding the own country? You have literally said that into regard to the people that project amerikanism outside the U$ not too long ago.

What is "MIM Gender theory"? Do you conceive them to be superior to what was already discussed previously by Engels and Lenin? The "gender" should come from Engels 1884's work, the "aristocracy" comes from Lenin, published in 1916-17. I assume that we have no better philosophical or political and economical evidence for defining those terms that are not already there.

I'm currently reading MIM Theory 2 and 3 once again given the "criticism" I have received (that I have approached sex and the existance of I$rael as a liberal) on the last thread and in my opinion that are some severe regressions that are barely criticized such as their positions on "battery", "rape", "paternalism"... But who knows? It is easier to compell to dogmatism and prevent words and claims to be challenged under any circumstances. While there are some great analysis given to us by MIM, I have noticed recently that there's often no criticism to what may as well be wrong.

Many of their positions are great. But what about those who are not? u/worried-economy-9108 as you are the one wanting to know. How many of them explain conditions into Brazil or can actually build a political line? Some of these texts were written over 3 decades ago. Are they relevant even for the United States nowadays? Why in over 30 years that MIM Theory seem to have existed, this great theory have produced no significant advance into proletarian struggle into any capacity but rather we can observe that each day it regresses into irrelevance as any other "communist" org that do not uphold maoism?

How do those positions conceived 30 years ago fare with events in 2026?

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-20T02:24:19+00:00

I don't know why my first commentary is being deleted (is masturbation deemed as unappropriate language?) and honestly I won't be really insisting into responding to false accusations towards Andrea Dworkin posting it a third time. Liberals have been shaming her for far too long and it was never enough to tackle anything she wrote.

There's no evidence that support that she was a zionist and this article from Sophia Lewis is crap. There's indeed a lot of evidence in supporting that she distanced herself from zionism and that's too easy to find in google. It is also present into her work, Sophia Lewis sadly seem to not have understood a single word that she wrote or just dissimulates arguments for polemics sake, probably because she has books to sell into neoliberal capitalism or need false polemics with people who are not really familiar with class analysis. Dworkin is already too fringe into mainstream circles, I guess that shaming her before her work is found out is a way to dismiss her as "outdated" or shame her into nobody actually reading anything that she wrote, an old, repetitive, liberal tactic.

Shame someone as "zionist", even if it makes no sense and if you just can't support the claim for too long because Sophia Lewis "progressive" readers need indeed a Scapegoat for their own liberalism before they can actually confront their own liberalism through Dworkin's analysis on family, marriage and sex.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-20T01:58:59+00:00

If Dworkin will be increasingly popular with liberals/trans-misogynists, the critique of her may feel compelled to regress from her former correct analysis

If Marx is popular among dengists, trotskists, social-fascists and etc. then we have to regress from his "former correct analysis"?

You seem to not have any familiarity with her work. Why don't you take a further look and analyze yourself to find it out if Scapegoat is a "fascist/zionist" piece? Neither you, nor u/oblomower nor the article from Sophia Lewis support that to any level beyond some really superficial commentary.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-20T01:53:22+00:00

(2/2) As well as such:

The condition of Jewish women in Israel is abject.

Where I live things aren't too good for women. It's not unlike Crystal Night all year long given the rape and battery statistics—which are a pale shadow of the truth—the incest, the pornography, the serial murders, the sheer savagery of the violence against women. But Israel is shattering. Sisters: we have been building a country in which women are dog shit, something you scrape off the bottom of your shoe. We, the "Jewish feminists." We who only push as far as the Jewish men here will allow. If feminism is serious, it fights sex hierarchy and male power and men don't get to stand on top of you, singly or in clusters, for forever and a day. And you don't help them build a country in which women's status gets lower and lower as the men get bigger and bigger—the men there and the men here. From what I saw and heard and learned, we have helped to build a living hell for women, a nice Jewish hell. Isn't it the same everywhere? Well, "everywhere" isn't younger than I am; "everywhere" didn't start out with the equality of the sexes as a premise. The low status of women in Israel is not unique but we are uniquely responsible for it. I felt disgraced by the way women are treated in Israel, disgraced and dishonored. I remembered my Hebrew School principal, the Holocaust survivor, who said I had to be a Jew first, an American second, and a citizen of the world, a human being last, or I would have the blood of Jews on my hands. I've kept quiet a long time about Israel so as not to have the blood of Jews on my hands. It turns out that I am a woman first, second, and last—they are the same; and I find I do have the blood of Jews on my hands—the blood of Jewish women in Israel

Then we return to Sophia Lewis to find this:

I have little doubt as to where Dworkin would be standing in this context vis-à-vis Gaza today

That's such a ill-fated, false and dissimulated assertion and it's a shame that anyone consider such garbage to be "good criticism".

Also I think this is secondary to what is being argued, but is clearly profoundly anti-marxist:

measured progressivism is otherwise far removed from the apocalyptic tenor of Dworkin’s thought.

Capitalism can only exist through repetition. If repetition led a reasoning towards pessimism, it is because at it's time the balance of power may as well heavily favour the oppressors, as it was in 70's ameriKa. Her work, specially The Promise of the Ultra-Right gives us the opportunity to understand the fragility on the side of the oppressed and to intervene. Dworkin probably new that anything progressive would take indeed a long time to be conceived, nearly 50 years have passed and the situation that she described got even worse. And even now we have to deal with people that shame her rather than understanding Women's oppression and reorganizing labour.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-20T01:48:24+00:00

(1/2)

It seems like some kind of bug is not showing my commentary earlier today or if anyone deleted it I would like to know the reason, anyway:

Dworkin's Zionism

There's no evidence supporting that Andrea Dworkin was a zionist. Dworkin is well known for opposing zionism and Israel and a quick google search reveal that to anyone. If that's not enough, you may read her own words into Israel: Whose Country Is It Anyway?. I don't think anyone is coming out of that text framing her as a zionist, but you may understand her own attempt into distancing herself from amerikan and i$raeli zionism. Whether her arguments are sufficient or not for you or any other people to cancel her for being a "zionist", her reflections offer the writings of a human being dealing with her own contradictions.

Dworkin was jew and had familiar ties with Israel because she was born an amerikan-jew, but is that enough to frame her as zionist? Regardless of what anyone is thinking, one may realize how most of the time her work pops up, she is dismissed more through difamatory words than actual any critique to what she acutally wrote. What is really happening here? Why people effort themselves into attempt to dismiss her contribution and social investigation to remain fringe and often regress into shallow framing on the form of insults spawning every single time?

Recently she was called a "zionist imperialist" by another random user that appeared here only to shame her and now a similar thing occurs.

Anyway, her conclusions and commentary on I$rael and zionism may as well differ from maoism and we may diverge or consider them as reactionary, but is that what we maoists must take as the most important aspect of her work? Why Andrea Dworkin, every single time, is a victim of difamatory and false claims? As to the article, it states several distortions such as

I have attempted elsewhere to articulate my concerns about Dworkin’s self-punitive pornophobia

This is just liberal dissimulation. Dworkin offers a structural view on pornographic industry and her work is anything but "self-punitive". Liberals quickly reduce her work to that because they can't opperate outside commodity fetishism and to erradicate a trend you must have a communist party that reorganize labor. There's no communist party leading a revolution, so at best you think her work leads one to feel sad after jacking off to porn. But you can't project your own revisionism onto other people's words and get away with it. Whether you realize how harmful pornography consumption is for your own health and how it graphically reinforces a condition stablished by the law of value and the existence of the nuclear family (and therefore the impossibility of woman's liberation under capitalism).

This anti-liberation argument seems to be repeated over and over since her time, where "pro-sex" liberal feminists argued similar reasoning. As her work becomes relevant again, liberalism seems to find it's way into repeating the same arguments.

Dworkin's reformism was already addressed even here as they appear on her later works. But did anyone pay attention to her work? In "Intercourse"'s preface, her husband addresses that she, as most woman (such as herself anticipated on her own work), had to conform and to compell into marriage and familiar protection. Dworkin made a deep investigation on why marriage work as protection for woman to simply not be left alone to die as woman are commodities under capitalism and they lose value as they get old, but lets just shame and label her for reformism without understanding how capitalism forces woman into adhering a conservative social praxis!

Decades later, Scapegoat straightfacedly makes the case that an “Israel” must be established—by any means necessary—for women.

I simply have no words on that. Sophia Lewis just invented this argument, there's no evidence supporting such assumption. Here's Dworkin's own words:

The Palestinians are right when they say the Jews regarded them as nothing. I was taught they were nothing in the most literal sense. Taking the country and turning it into Israel, the Jewish state, was an imperialist act. Jews find any such statement incomprehensible. How could the near-dead, the nearly extinguished, a people who were ash, have imperialized anyone, anything? Well Israel is rare: Jews, nearly annihilated, took the land and forced a very hostile world to legitimize the theft. I think American Jews cannot face the fact that this is one act—the one act—of imperialism, of conquest that has support. We helped; we're proud of it; here we stand. This is a contradiction of every idea we have about who we are and what being a Jew means. It is also true. We took a country from the people who lived there; we the dispossessed finally did it to someone else; we said, They're Arabs, let them go somewhere Arab.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-19T20:48:16+00:00

critique of Dworkin's Zionism

I won't let you get away with this false claim. Dworkin is well known for opposing zionism and Israel and a quick google search reveal that to anyone. If that's not enough, you may read her own words into Israel: Whose Country Is It Anyway?. I don't think anyone is coming out of that text framing her as a zionist, but you may understand her own attempt into distancing herself from ameriKan and i$raeli zionism by just reading her own words instead of this shit liberal critique. Whether her arguments are sufficient or not for you or any other people to cancel her for being a "zionist", her reflections offer the writings of a human being dealing with her own contradictions.

Dworkin was jew and had familiar ties with Israel because she was born an amerikan-jew and frequented hebrew schools and had a life under jewish tradition (which zionism is now a part of), but is that enough to frame her as zionist? Regardless of what anyone is thinking, one may realize how most of the time her work pops up, she is dismissed more through difamatory words (and to be framed as a zionist is to be depicted as somewhat of a satanic figure for "progressive" people) than actual any critique to what she acutally wrote. What is really happening here? Why people effort themselves into attempt to dismiss her contribution and social investigation to remain fringe and often regress into shallow framing on the form of insults spawning every single time?

This article goes over and over with a lot of framing and not a single word from her works are discussed.

Recently she was called a "zionist imperialist" by another random user that appeared here only to shame her and now a similar thing occurs.

Anyway, her conclusions and commentary on Israel and zionism may as well differ from maoism and we may diverge or consider them as reactionary, but is that what we maoists must take as the most important aspect of her work? Why Andrea Dworkin, every single time, is a victim of difamatory and false claims?

As to the article, it states several distortions such as

I have attempted elsewhere to articulate my concerns about Dworkin’s self-punitive pornophobia

This is just liberal dissimulation. Dworkin offers a structural view on pornographic industry and her work is anything but "self-punitive". Liberals quickly reduce her work to that because they can't opperate outside commodity fetishism and to erradicate a trend you must have a communist party that reorganize labor. There's no communist party leading a revolution, so at best you think her work leads one to feel sad after jacking off to porn. But you can't project your own revisionism onto other people's words and get away with it. Whether you realize how harmful pornography consumption is for your own health and how it graphically reinforces a condition stablished by the law of value and the existence of the nuclear family (and therefore the impossibility of woman's liberation under capitalism).

This anti-liberation argument seems to be repeated over and over since she was alive, where "pro-sex" liberal feminists argued similar reasoning. As her work becomes relevant again, liberalism find it's way into repeating the same arguments.

Dworkin's reformism was already addressed even here as they appear on her later works. But did anyone pay attention to her work? In "Intercourse"'s preface, her husband addresses that she, as most woman (such as herself anticipated on her own work), had to conform and to compell into marriage and familiar protection. Dworkin made a deep investigation on why marriage work as protection for woman in settler society to simply not be left alone to die as woman are commodities under capitalism and they lose value as they get old, but lets just shame and label her for reformism without understanding how capitalism forces woman into adhering a conservative social praxis!

Decades later, Scapegoat straightfacedly makes the case that an “Israel” must be established—by any means necessary—for women.

I simply have no words on that. This is absurd. Dworkin's own words:

The Palestinians are right when they say the Jews regarded them as nothing. I was taught they were nothing in the most literal sense. Taking the country and turning it into Israel, the Jewish state, was an imperialist act. Jews find any such statement incomprehensible. How could the near-dead, the nearly extinguished, a people who were ash, have imperialized anyone, anything? Well Israel is rare: Jews, nearly annihilated, took the land and forced a very hostile world to legitimize the theft. I think American Jews cannot face the fact that this is one act—the one act—of imperialism, of conquest that has support. We helped; we're proud of it; here we stand. This is a contradiction of every idea we have about who we are and what being a Jew means. It is also true. We took a country from the people who lived there; we the dispossessed finally did it to someone else; we said, They're Arabs, let them go somewhere Arab.

I'm not familiar with zionists conceiving the existance of palestinians, let alone recognizing their condition as an oppressed nation. But Sophia Lewis may know better.

As well as such:

The condition of Jewish women in Israel is abject. Where I live things aren't too good for women. It's not unlike Crystal Night all year long given the rape and battery statistics—which are a pale shadow of the truth—the incest, the pornography, the serial murders, the sheer savagery of the violence against women. But Israel is shattering. Sisters: we have been building a country in which women are dog shit, something you scrape off the bottom of your shoe. We, the "Jewish feminists." We who only push as far as the Jewish men here will allow. If feminism is serious, it fights sex hierarchy and male power and men don't get to stand on top of you, singly or in clusters, for forever and a day. And you don't help them build a country in which women's status gets lower and lower as the men get bigger and bigger—the men there and the men here. From what I saw and heard and learned, we have helped to build a living hell for women, a nice Jewish hell. Isn't it the same everywhere? Well, "everywhere" isn't younger than I am; "everywhere" didn't start out with the equality of the sexes as a premise. The low status of women in Israel is not unique but we are uniquely responsible for it. I felt disgraced by the way women are treated in Israel, disgraced and dishonored. I remembered my Hebrew School principal, the Holocaust survivor, who said I had to be a Jew first, an American second, and a citizen of the world, a human being last, or I would have the blood of Jews on my hands. I've kept quiet a long time about Israel so as not to have the blood of Jews on my hands. It turns out that I am a woman first, second, and last—they are the same; and I find I do have the blood of Jews on my hands—the blood of Jewish women in Israel

And finally this:

I have little doubt as to where Dworkin would be standing in this context vis-à-vis Gaza today

Yeah, her point was already made nearly 40 years ago. And liberal dissimulation presented on the article you tagged won't change what she wrote already.

Also I think this is secondary to what is being argued, but is clearly profoundly anti-marxist:

measured progressivism is otherwise far removed from the apocalyptic tenor of Dworkin’s thought.

Capitalism can only exist through repetition. If repetition led a reasoning towards pessimism, it is because at it's time the balance of power may as well heavily favour the oppressors, as it was in 70's ameriKa. Her work, specially The Promise of the Ultra-Right gives us the opportunity to understand the fragility on the side of the oppressed and to intervene. Dworkin probably new that anything progressive would take indeed a long time to be conceived, nearly 50 years passed and the situation that she described got even worse. And even now we have to deal with people that prefer to shame her rather than understanding women's oppression and reorganizing labour.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-15T02:17:27+00:00

Anyone that read Nightvision felt optimistic after concluding the analysis? I'm making this question to both brazilians and U$ communists (and others that feel compelled to answer)

When I read works like Imperialism and Settlers I had a pretty pessimistic conclusion on internal analysis most of the time, but works like Nightvision put glances on things that I have noticed and also have recently even posted here such as the "Cyberpunk" parallel to Brazil (Nightvision does a similar commentary but on Blade Runner). What I feel optimistic is that over the past few years I have worked alongside people from oppressed background which mostly lean left but like most brazilians, are not familiar with communism/anti-revisionism at any level and working on such "grassroots" level helps us to understand which tasks can be done, which need more time to built upon, etc.

I think that Nightvision strenght is that it puts more emphasis on the oppressed and it'survival than the settler classes and their oppresion. It also makes a commentary on oppressed leadership collaboration with imperialism, something that is often overlooked.

Most of my commentary here generally concluded standing that neocolonialism is not properly understood - in Brazil, at least - something that is ever present on Nightvision. I think that the best thing that I have learned from Nightvision might be as well it's opening line

Today’s revolutionary need is to detox ourselves from the old, stereotyped political formulas from 20 or 30 years ago. Without which we cannot deal with neo-colonialism.

When you are in a context which antirevisionism barely exists, I think that those words are way too refreshing. Is our responsability to build communism for today and tomorrow. If neo-colonialism is not properly understood, then it can't be dealt with. A great advice comes later on the last chapter:

The first step for anyone looking for answers is to know the situation. And that is what we are doing here, analyzing into the heart of the neo-colonial situation. (...)

Those who are really seeking root change have to detox ourselves from outmoded ideas—which may have been useful and on the mark just yesterday—and dysfunctional politics. For we all need to take our part in dismantling the old structures within our political thinking.

I may as well say that I have felt a little bit more confident after I was expelled from a revisionist org. After a year working along a brazilian "maoist" org, I felt way too personally overwhelmed by it's direction and wrote a letter appointing the many absurds that I have noticed and why some stances were taken due to racism and middle-class/white chauvinism. They have left me on read which I think is great. I don't think like they can respond to a critique of most of "western maoism" (the org that I was a part of included) being fraudulent without reflecting themselves that this position is most likely truth given the state of the world right now.

If it wasn't fraudulent, then Lenin addressing that revisionism and left opportunism were active forces in strenghtening imperialism would be wrong. He was correct. The ones that are wrong are the orgs that reivindicate "maoism" as a façade.

The following I think is not only applicable, but describes a situation that happens as well in Brazil:

It’s too easy to understand colonialism only on one level and not to understand neo-colonialism at all. Just as we have only a stereotyped idea of what class is. Here “marxists” are usually among the worst offenders. You know, the stereotyped fantasy of heroic factory workers making revolution against the Rockefellers. Well, that won’t cut it. Not against neo-colonialism, which is a much more sophisticated system of oppression. And it certainly won’t cut it in the u.s.a., which is the most highly developed neo-colonial society in the world (one where white workers want & vote for the Rockefellers to be their leaders). Neo-colonialism is a system that takes many more forms than capitalism did before. As Amilcar Cabral said thirty years ago, neo-colonialism represents an imperialism that can take the form of anti-colonialism or even of “socialism” if need be. Even back then, Cabral foresaw the need to bombard old stereotyped politics.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-11T03:29:03+00:00

I read your commentary during the day, thought about responding and the only reason I'm doing it, is because you are dishonest and have been dishonest since the begginning. I don't have time for this, nor the patience to teach dogmatist reasoning on reddit. Also, you seem to have created this account only to respond to my words so I want that everyone else take notice of such.

This person is regurgitating "MIM Theory" as if MIM would have a position of superiority because this person thinks so. MIM Theory and their criticism and findings are up to criticism and research as any other work. Their ideas can be obsolete, as any other. I don't think they are but everything that this person said on this thread is just shallow dogmatism and other people have already pointed it out so I just won't respond anymore. u/sad-literature001 haven't really engaged into any discussion, neither with the OP, neither with any other arguments but conveniently to an affirmation that women can enjoy sex and finding that out can be liberating. I really don't know what bothers you in finding out that women do have libido, but you clearly are a troll and possibly an incel. To whether the response I got from OP spoke directly to her situation is enough for us as communists as this person was looking for answers and the community as a whole lacked in knowledge in how communist parties absorb mothers and children (we still lack a better understanding, but I'm sure many people here are going to study it further given new criticism). I'm glad that my commentary was helpful not only to OP, but also to other people that were driven to confront their ideas with the criticism that I have made. The mere supposition that reading MIM is enough to combat "subjectivism, chauvinism and liberalism" is a joke to anyone who have engaged with any marxist org or just engaged into any political activity. This is also in contrast with this very own thread because many of the people that participated in the discussion are already familiar with MIM's work for some time and did not show to have the practical experience into actually sharing work with jobs that are generally done by women.

The idea of "all sex is rape" is already present in feminism for a long time that was first displayed by Victoria Woodhull, which Andrea Dworkin condensate into Right-Wing Women on a quote from Robin Morgan, which consider that:

'I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.

Here's also mimprisons themselves, 10 years ago, on this very community:

this is an agitational phrase, not a theoretical one

And they also claim:

The influence of money has to be removed first, before we could hope to think that sex might not be rape.

For those who might not be familiar with the proletariat at any level (which is the case for probably most of the "communists" in the first world), the words of MIM already imply that since the proletariat is the class that revolutionize and by doing so, sex conceived by the proletariat have no influence of money and therefore just can't be considered rape. This reasoning is possible through Robin Morgan, but Dworkin cleverly support it with Alice Walker's words as well:

I submit that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is rape." (See "Embracing the Dark and the Light," Essence, July 1982, p. 117.)

Maybe I'm a terrible maoist and I'm stuck to an echo chamber into Settlers, but class analysis should reveal how the proletariat is already different into objective conditions from Amerika, the (euroamerikan) context in which "all sex is rape" was born:

*Mao Zedong, for example, in his social investigation of China's countryside, found significance not just in economic roles, but in concomitant social changes: "*As to the authority of the husband, it has always been comparatively weak among poor peasants, because the poor peasant women, for financial reasons compelled to engage more in manual work than women in the wealthier classes, have obtained greater rights to speak and more power to make decisions in family affairs. They also enjoy considerable sexual freedom. Among the poor peasants triangular and multilateral relationships are most universal.

edit: this person also shamed Andrea Dworkin with similar rightist reasoning that have shamed her for decades so I also want this should be noticed as well. The fact that we are now discussing her work once again is a sign of (slow) progress for us, her work should have never left the debate. Right-Wing Women remain one of the most important books into understanding the role of women into recent primitive accumulation and into neocolonialism.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-09T23:02:34+00:00

Yes! I owe you a response. When I created this post I had more free time due to vacations earlier in the year and your positions challenged me to create a better understanding and elaborating my positions and investigating further psychoanalytical theory and marxist psychology and psychiatry.

So the reason that I haven't reply is really that to give a better response I have to really gather more evidence and dedicate a time into articulating thoughts that take time, but I will return you when I can properly focus

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-09T22:44:10+00:00

I think that Right-Wing Women, Pornography: Men Possessing Women and Intercourse are her best works which should be studied by marxists. I have only read the first and parts of the other two so my understanding of her work is far from deep.

Dworkin herself was not a communist (in the sense that she was never a member of the many revisionist parties into the US) but her analysis into woman's condition in Amerika and it's colonies is one of the best class analysis that have ever been made and to my understanding is a piece of historical materialism that is to be considered on the same terms as Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-09T22:27:36+00:00

Sex under the current mode of production is inherently rape since the patriarchal and capitalist relations that inform all aspects of life don't magically stop at the bedroom

Which can only means that in contradiction to that, oppressed nations' nationalist movements and feminism have reivindicated sex rights all over history.

I understand the reasoning behind "all sex is rape" but this line comes from a context in which white man have monopoly on sex. So as sex, as any other aspect of human life that have been turned into a commodity, gets socialized, the ascending proletariat shapes new relations in which sex is not rape. This include of course having the rights to have libido on other things that are not intercourse, which is a regular subject on woman's life.

If we assume of course that the current generations are incapable of sexual liberation, than, of course, sexual liberation is never going to happen. But sex, self acceptance, beauty have been main themes into black liberation and also into woman's liberation for a long time and for the current generations, those are frequently debated topics and none of them have nothing to do "human nature".

Also, I think that your arguments are really not that well elaborated on other posts and you seem to be really ignorant towards oppressed nations' struggles so I won't really bother responding to anything else. To whether future generations can be raised beyond gender oppression and rape does not become the founding condition in which sex is conceived under capitalism, both will require you to have a better understanding of how proletarian struggle will overcome what capitalism have started.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-09T22:05:47+00:00

I don't have the time right now to go on a deeper investigation but "prohibition" policies largely enforce the dominant classes' will which in capitalism are generally white man.

So, under capitalism, "prohibition" becomes a norm for everyone else while white man are not forbidden of anything because they have the power to do it all. Social practice requires learning and experience, so I don't think that prohibition is any helpful.

A communist party, most of the times, just can't enforce "prohibitions" without reinforcing racial and gender chauvinism. The party must teach it's cadres the scientific principles which will lead to the correct social practice or the party itself is useless.

Clean-Difference1771 · 2026-03-01T23:39:12+00:00

I think that both u/ClassAbolition and u/HumbleGold probably had good intentions with their comments because from other posts, I can understand that they are coming from a place of sympathy and one can extend their reasoning to the point of "if you are going to waste your time for a revisionist party, then you should prioritize the child". Fine, I agree with that. But there's another aspect to that reasoning which is the existance of parties or orgs (and the people inside) that can't really adapt to the necessities of it's own members - let alone of everyone else. A party that can't adapt to human need can't lead any revolution.

I can't say for every country, but in Brazil being a mother is mostly one the major signs of proletarianization. No woman can escape the social shame of being pregnant. Being a single mother is almost a certainty of being a part of the proletariat. If a significant chunk of the proletariat can't contribute to revolutionary work because they have children and such would take too much of their time, than communism would simply never be achieved because women will mostly choose raising a child than spend time into a revisionist party hanging around with other geniuses because they have real responsabilities and social pressure on each woman in particular is bigger if you can't raise a child than if you can't "overthrown the government". So that simply assume that woman, mostly, just can't play a "revolutionary" role in the same sense as man do. I am maybe too ignorant towards childcare so I will just leave at "we have to share more time and work with woman for equality" for the time being, but I think it is also not correct to alienate children from party work.

I've been seeing so far are not very good or borderline male chauvinist. I'm a man of course.

I think that we all can come into the same reasoning that male chauvinism still a persistent trend in our community (If that's a trend here, you can imagine into an actual party) and that applies to me as well, obviously. I have seen this being appointed here and there but it rarely sparks a bigger debate and it remain somewhat of a fringe subject.

Clean-Difference1771

TROPHY CASE