- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
Doubles the workforceRemoves the artificial societal limit that arbitrarily cuts the workforce in halfFTFY
Tad rude to refer to children as “artificial limitations”
You can raise children while both parents are working. Billions of families do it every day. Especially if you also get rid of the notion that raising children is mostly a mother’s job while the father is free to drink beer and watch TV after work.
Removing gender roles in order to more equitably distribute the workload is progressive. You can remove morality from that equation and it still works, ergo it is absolutely something we should support and there are no reasons to perpetuate backwards gender roles.
to perpetuate backwards gender roles
I never even suggested that. Where did you get that from? All I’m saying is, people in power aren’t your friends.
Although is it a good thing that me and my wife work like crazy to keep our family going? Is this really what life is about? I’d love to be stay at home dad, yet I can’t
People in power are not necessarily your enemies either, by virtue of being “in power.” Administration is a necessity in maintaining a large and complex society with intricate production methods and staggering scales of logistics. There will always be a need for administration, of some sort.
The fact that you and your wife work incredibly hard for your family is a byproduct of a highly unequitable distribution of the products of labor. Making labor equitable and more socialized as production gets more complex increases the output and minimizes the number of over or underworked people. We can move to universal 4 day work weeks or even 3 day eventually, by making labor more equitable and socializing the outputs of labor.
That’s why arguing for gender roles, ie a portion of society to perform unpaid domestic labor, is the wrong way to view labor. Domestic labor should be paid labor from the social fund, and childcare should be free at point of service so that this burden of labor is more equitably spread.
Both of these things are good.
Maybe a bad choice of words on my part, maybe I should write “not because it’s right, but because it doubles the workforce”
Although whether “double the workforce” is good or bad, I’d keep that for a discussion, see my other comment for more info: https://lemmy.world/comment/16185467
Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing. While their motivations are cynical, those leaders are doing good.
…or are you trying to imply that keeping women out of the traditional work force (by only allowing them to work unpaid in the home in domestic servitude, labor that capital does not value) increases the value of male labor through scarcity, which would be preferred?
Sorry that second question kind of reads as an attack. A shitty coworker of mine said that to me unironically and tried to play it off as a joke when I pushed back.
I think this inherently accepts the narrative that the work women were doing before had no or little value.
That care and emotional labour should not fall solely on women and we should all have the opportunity to partake in meaningful work but we shouldn’t accept having to accept less time for care (and leisure) on some trumped up definition of what’s productive/economic or not.
As labor is further socialized (basically centralizing and then running itself without capitalist intervention) you end up having labor done by men and women and women still being responsible for more domestic duties which are labor but not considered labor(because those being done for free subsidizes capitalist profit) the solution though isn’t to keep women in the household, it is to do socialism, where domestic labor can be socialized (it isn’t under capitalism because why would you socialize labor you’re already getting for free?)
Sorry for late response and I see the comment is now deleted by a mod but whatever (well we’re on .ml after all).
What I was trying to point out, was the “cynical” part of it. That people in power often don’t do it because they want to empower women or help people, more often than not it’s just that it brings more people into their “meat grinder” - regardless of the regime. In case of capitalism it’s obvious but it doesn’t need to be money necessarily; in the case of Stalin - pardon me if I don’t believe that he did it for “supporting women rights and making the world a better place ✌️”, he did it for the raw economic power to compete with US during cold war and so his own country wouldn’t collapse because of his stupid actions.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate. I deliberately didn’t want to say anything in that area, I’m just saying that the motivation of people in power is cynical, not saying if result is good or bad.
But if you’d want my personal stance - I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t. Even though my country sort of supports it, my pay would cut dramatically and we as a family wouldn’t be able to survive.
But honestly thank you for asking. It’s very refreshing to meet a person who asks and tries to understand the motivation of the commenter rather than jumping right to the conclusion (as almost every other response here)
I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t.
Being a stay at home dad is work. Raising children is necessary work that capitalism requires, because it requires laborers. We have engineered a system in which this work is uncompensated, and if you gender this work, it causes gendered oppression.
I will also point out that in America we have decided that unless you have a “job”, society has decided that you pretty much don’t deserve health care. Anyone who chooses a life of domestic labor in America puts themselves in a position where they are financially dependent on their spouse and their spouse’s employment status. It doesn’t have to be this way. We have forged these chains.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate.
If we had more workers, it could be that we wouldn’t need those workers to work as long. Earlier retirement, shorter work weeks, whatever. The issue is not the size of the work force, the issue is what is chosen to be done with it.
deleted by creator
Way to turn the communist acheivement of women’s empowerment into something negative.
I literally said it’s a positive thing, just that motivation of people in power is cynical. Also I didn’t mention communism, I meant it in general regardless of regime
If like every bog-standard anticommunist, you’re going to impute cynical motives on every objectively good thing communists do, we’re not going to take you seriously.
Yeah, and no fault divorce keeps the workforce happier and reduces domestic violence (meaning less injured and killed workers), abortion on demand makes it easier for people to continue working, and socializing former domestic labor improves the efficiency of that work and frees up labor for leisure or other labor, but those things are still good and part of the socialist feminist project.
But at what cost?!
Lots of unnessessary deaths and emprisonment
Me when my country still has lynchings of black and brown people, had horrific racial discrimination during the worst of the USSRs excesses, has the highest per capita incarceration rate of overwhelmingly black and indigenous people, is responsible in part for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis, put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 just in case they were spies, genocided their native population and still effectively operates apartheid for the remaining natives, supports the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, locked up and tortured MENA people without trial post 9/11 in an offshore torture camp, ran black sites all across Iraq and Afghanistan doing more torture of brown people and on and on and on and on and on and on…
Oh come on. You already know what they are going to say to all of this.
Hint: it is a pentasyllable.
Oooh ooh I know this one!
spoiler
WHATABOUTISM
(HURR DURR)
How do you think unnecessary deaths and imprisonment in the Soviet Union were related to its egalitarian approach to education?
Removed by mod
…you actually believe the USSR was executing… someone… if a particular woman didn’t get a science degree?
These are liberals we’re talking about. They believe all manner of anti-communist nonsense.
Libs think 1984 is a non fiction book and Stalin had people killed unless they exposed their belly and peed themselves in front of him
You should really learn to spell words before you try to fight a bunch of liberal nerds.
…liberal?
Yeah isn’t Lenny.ml full of the libs?
It’s the tributary where the fresh stream of Marxism Leninism flowing from Lemmygrad and Hexbear meet the salty ocean of liberalism that is the wider internet. Most of the admin team are Marxist Leninists, but a decent portion of it’s userbase are libs, and several instances that normally block Lemmygrad and Hexbear don’t block lemmy.ml.
No, not really
No, thats just my sign of being humand instead of AI
Is this a meme ?
Mysagony: the Silant Killar
Removed by mod
That’s not what the science says btw. If you go to Russia and ask old people about how they feel about the USSR, they are significantly more likely to have favourable views of the USSR than young people who didn’t experience it. If you are interested, you can also look at Generational and Geographic Effects on Collective Memory of the USSR.
Old people in Russia will not remember the Stalin era, but the Khrushchev era (the post-gulag era, famous for de-stalinization) and the Brezhnev era. Old people also tend to romatisize their youth. And romatisizing the Soviet Union is mixed with ethno-nationalism in current days Russia.
I consider myself a socialist, but stalinism is dog-shit.
The world owes Stalin and the people of the USSR a debt that can never be repaid for being the only country to try to stop Nazi Germany before the war and the country which bore the brunt of the casualties and hardship.
Any “socialist” who shit talks them is suspicious as fuck in my book, chauvinist at the very best and probably a snitch.
Khrushchev was an opportunist piece of shit and the world would have been better if he had been kicked out of the party.
The soviets saved the world, but Stalin was a monster ntl.
You’re joking, right? Never heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Funny fact: all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France? The one that was signed after Stalin’s pleas for an alliance against Hitler’s Germany fell on deaf ears because Western powers were still dreaming that Germany would attack the USSR first and succeed where they’d failed immediately after the 1917 revolution? That one?
Historically illiterate westerners read a single fucking line and memorize it and think that’s an earth-shattering gotcha like we haven’t seen your cookie cutter shit a hundred times. Serious socialists who actually read history can contextualize history, and I’ll repeat it: fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it’s barely notch above outright holocaust denial.
all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
Back up your claims with a serious source. I’m sure such a comically extraordinary claim will have hard evidence behind it and not just a vibe.
A user just moved the goalpost to the time when the U.S.S.R. traded some raw materials in exchange for firearms and other machinery (which it later used to help defeat the Axis). One can imagine another counterarguing that this credit deal hardly enabled the Third Reich’s bellicism; that, if anything, it likely only lead to the Axis’s defeat as it allowed the Soviets to prepare for the armed conflict. Ask yourself if that sounds identical to the liberal bourgeoisie’s appeasement.
The Third Reich’s trade with the Kingdom of Romania between January and November 1940 surpassed its trade with the Soviet Union. I would be surprised if the Soviets did indeed deliver ‘about 75%’ of the Third Reich’s imports: only 34% of the Third Reich’s oil came from the Soviet Union; it looks like the Kingdom of Romania was a much more important source of Fascism’s black gold.
The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France?
While not directly related to the pacts, the British Empire exported significant quantities of scrap to the Third Reich. In fact, the British Empire served as the Third Reich’s primary source of imported raw materials in the 1930s. I cannot say much about pre-1940 France’s economic relations with the Third Reich, but you sparked my curiosity on that subject.
fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it’s barely notch above outright holocaust denial.
Added to this, 75.3% of Europe’s Jewish refugees found refuge in the Soviet Union during World War II, Lithuanian Jews welcomed the Red Army in 1940, which had the highest number of Jews of all the Allied armies, and (my favourite) Soviet policies lead Transnistrians to resist antisemitism, even during Axis occupation.
You do know that the USSR signed a trade deal with Nazi Germany even in 1940, right? When the rest of the world was already blockading Nazi Germany for… being Nazi’s. In fact, in 1940 the Soviet Union delivered about 75% of Nazi Germany’s imports, mostly in oil & steel. Stalin could’ve joined that blockade, and not supplied the necessary materials for the Nazi war maschine – but he didn’t.
You can acknowledge that, and still acknowledge the USSR took the brunt of the force fighting the Nazi’s. It’s not a sports game, you don’t have to pick sides.
Check Wikipedia/Хронология советской цензуры and references 45 and 46 there. I don’t particularly like mixing here several topics together as interchangeable statements: soviet people sacrificed greatly to stop the nazi aggression. Stalin is another great woe of soviet people. Stalin was very much on the same page with nazis when it came to dividing the territories, bad that the leopard ate his face.
I won’t deny the scientific studies.
I am speaking from personal and family experience
You literally are, that’s what you’re doing right here. You are saying your experience trumps the data.
Telling me what to think is totalitarian
totalitarian is when capitalists hold no political power, thus intrinsically evil.
Removed by mod
100% this. Im from Russia and I have heard many horrible stories from older relatives about previous generations and life under the USSR. Life is definitely shitty now, but it’s still better than those years
Lol you’re not even allowed to have your own personal experiences here, that’s apparently in conflict with the glorious Data.
I’m not surprised lol. For some reason, foreign fans of communism like to ignore how real people actually lived back then. +It’s funny that I also quite often came across old people who praised the USSR, but their words always sounded like “yes, we had a terrible shortage in our country, we didn’t have normal clothes, food, or medicine, and my parents were afraid to even talk about politics, BUT ice cream cost three kopecks and was tastier than now!". All the love for the USSR from them is just nostalgia for the times when they were carefree kids
All the love for the USSR from them is just nostalgia for the times when they were carefree kids
Yeah bro only enlightened westerners are smart enough to recognize why they preferred a certain economic and political system, dumb easterners just want ice cream. They definitely didn’t have a better political education than you. Hell, they probably didn’t even read Animal Farm!
Fucking chauvinists I stg.
What? Please learn to read first, this is not at all what I said. I just described my experience as a Russian who talked to a bunch of old post-USSR people about what life was like in those years. And like I said, they described horrible things that I wouldn’t want to experience, but some of them looked at them with love because they were younger and healthier then
“political education” do you mean endless propaganda, life in a country completely cut off from the rest of the world and censorship of literally everything? Yes, in that case I think I have a better political education. At least I studied at a time when Russia was freer than then and now
Their EBIL GOMMUNIST propaganda 🤮
Our smol bean capitalist education 🥰
Yeah the nostalgia angle sounds tough. And then you have the x-sov states that are backsliding (hungary, a bit of Czechia), I assume, based on some level of love for the authoritarian nostalgia.
Edit: apparently we can’t even accept that hungary has turned into an authoritarian state. Amazing.
No one here like Orban, you’re being down voted because that is some of the shittiest political analysis I have seen. You’re chalking up reactionary populism to Communist nostalgia- there is no ideological connection between the two.
