I'm a long-time follower of this list
and have been content to scan the conversations
but feel compelled to break my silence
just to say that I second comrade Cherry's remarks
& consider their intervention most welcome

whenever a minority is hunted down by a ruling class
& by a system of oppression that serves capitalism
THAT's where marxists need to join their struggle
&, in doing so, ask themselves, "what is there in this issue
that makes me/folks feel uncomfortable/challenged?"

historically, materially, etc., transgender & non-binary activism
has only benefitted us all (in the US & elsewhere)
(if alive today, Karl & Eleanor would certainly
support the liberation of these comrades
for what they teach us about the possibilities of real human development)


mark



On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 at 03:46, Cherry🌸💖(they/them)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear comrade,
>
> I think you have quite an economistic perception of marxism and its worldview.
>
> Firstly, Marx was never limit his analysis solely to class and economic 
> questions. In fact from start, he combated a lot of chauvinistic attacks and 
> nationalism, pointing out how the superstructure of capitalist society 
> alienates and treated human beings as some sort of appendage of the machine. 
> If you pay attention to Communist Manifesto you can read the following:
>
> >Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work 
> >of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently all 
> >charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is 
> >only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that 
> >is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is 
> >restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires 
> >for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a 
> >commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. 
> >In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the 
> >wage decreases.
>
> Marx and Engels quite clearly explained how capitalism as a whole treat and 
> constructed around transforming workers into this plain continuation of the 
> machine and how the wage question relates more to cultural aspects. For 
> instance, "reproducing working class" means no only buying things but also 
> alienates workers from exploring themselves as something more than just these 
> dummies who produce a surplus. Like capitalists use means from entertainment 
> to control of sexual life to convince capitalism is normal, workers need only 
> give education for being better servants of machinery, etc. However, 
> combating against this means reducing working hours, getting better wage to 
> explore self and promote own self-exploration combating alienation, i.e. when 
> goods produced by workers controlled outside them and when capitalists deny 
> they ability to explore the self.
>
> Secondly, you can see how this affects sexuality. If you read more on state 
> and its laws, the state considers women as being no mere than baby-producing 
> machines that cannot even control their own womb. At the same, men and women 
> divided and treated only in the context of the ability to reproduce the 
> population, to such extent that there can be laws directly controlling 
> sexuality and considering that women shall be not engaged in certain 
> activities due "issues with reproducing health". So being trans is somewhat 
> appendage and you directly considered to be castrated (like in Finland, 
> Slovakia, Czechia, Romania, Japan, etc), forced to save and freeze your 
> genetic material and in general, shall be a good trans and stay out of the 
> public sphere.
>
> Thirdly, nor Marx, nor Engels were dealing with transgender and non-binarity 
> topic. But Marxism is a paradigm, hence, it has its own methods and worldview 
> which you can expand to understand such issues, like how it relates to 
> capitalism as a whole and why it requires to use of certain ways of treating 
> workers.
>
> Btw, "transexual" is a term from 70s, and it's now not used and will be 
> omitted in the ICD-11 edition, please, when you refer to trans people like me 
> avoid using it and use transgender women, men or non-binary. Also asking 
> pronounces is nice ton.
>
> 



-- 






In tyrannos.  La Justicia Es Para Todos!


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#6828): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/6828
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80953897/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES &amp; NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly &amp; permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to