The PFLP’s Women’s Bureau salutes the struggle of women in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic on the occasion of International Women’s Day on the 8th of March.
Poster published by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s Women’s Bureau in 1977.
Liberalism has the following weaknesses:
1. It focuses on the individual rights rather than collective rights
2. It is ahistorical. It does not have a comprehensive understanding of women’s role in history nor has it any analysis for the subordination (subjugation) of women.
3. It tends to be mechanical in its support for formal equality without a concrete understanding of the condition of different sections/classes of women and their specific problems. Hence it was able to express the demands of the middle classes (white women from middle classes in the US and upper class, upper caste women in India) but not those of women from various oppressed ethnic groups, castes and the working, labouring classes.
4. It is restricted to changes in the law, educational and employment opportunities, welfare measures etc and does not question the economic and political structures of the society which give rise to patriarchal discrimination. Hence it is reformist in its orientation, both in theory and in practice.
5. It believes that the state is neutral and can be made to intervene in favour of women when in fact the bourgeois state in the capitalist countries and the semi-colonial and semi-feudal Indian state are patriarchal and will not support women’s struggle for emancipation. The State is defending the interests of the ruling classes who benefit from the subordination and devalued status of women.
6. Since it focuses on changes in the law, and state schemes for women, it has emphasised lobbying and petitioning as means to get their demands. The liberal trend most often has restricted its activity to meetings and conventions and mobilising petitions calling for changes. It has rarely mobilised the strength of the mass of women and is in fact afraid of the militant mobilisation of poor women in large numbers.” —“Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement” by Anuradha Ghandy (via bourgeoisentimentality)
While we use the word feminism we are conscious how much misused and at the same time misunderstood it can be within the revolutionary and MLM movement, where this word is often unpopular and opposed because of the bourgeois and reformist features it has been assuming over the years. However, for us to speak about feminism means to state that the leading role and the revolutionary determination of women are necessary and they cannot be set aside.
When we say feminism, we raise and claim all the hard struggle, the rebellion, the breakthroughs that women have had and have to carry out against the actual exploiting and oppressive bourgeois system. We speak about feminism because there will not be emancipation for the proletarians without a deep-rooted revolution in the role of women; there will not be revolution without liberation… without the breaking off of all shackles.
We speak about proletarian feminism, in opposition of the various forms of bourgeois and petit bourgeois feminism. We know that the material conditions, the class they belong to, that distinguishes individuals more than their gender. We do not believe a female specificity exists as an abstract problem of gender, prescribing the real social-economical conditions that materially determine their existences.
Unlike bourgeois women, proletarian women have no interest in maintaining the present state of things unchanged, to carve out seats, rights and opportunities inside bourgeois society.
We speak about revolutionary proletarian feminism because there can not be any achievement for women through reforms that leave the structure and production relationships in the bourgeois society unchanged. The liberation/emancipation of women has to be achieved within the deep-rooted revolutionary transformation of society by means of class struggle.” —INTERVENTION OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAN FEMINIST MOVEMENT (via proletarianfeminism)
It might be tempting to hope that capitalism will collapse on its own. Unfortunately, the system isn’t going to smash itself. Capitalism in crisis becomes even more ruthless.
They no longer even bother to keep up the pretence of caring about the future. Resource depletion and natural disasters aren’t problems for capitalists— in fact, scarcity makes prices and profits soar, and catastrophes are huge investment opportunities.
The only panic that a capitalist feels when contemplating the melting of the Arctic is that he won’t get to the newly uncovered oil first. They don’t care where they get their energy, as long as they control it all.
The system is dynamic, adaptable, and infinitely ruthless. Capitalism will ultimately destroy itself, but only when it’s destroyed all life on the planet, which is too late to matter.” —Stephanie McMillan, Capitalism Must Die
The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.
It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.” —Hunter S. Thompson, writing for ESPN’s Page 2 on Sept. 12, 2001 (via allisonkilkenny)
Allison and Jamie give some back-to-school advice, then give updates on Ferguson and Daniel Holtzclaw and his shady past, offer some of the latest examples of #Newsfail, and explain why you shouldn’t feel bad for enjoying pop culture.
Upcoming live gigs: Denver (9/12). Get tickets now!