the division of labor in society

anonymous asked:

"Abolishing the family" doesn't mean killing moms, dads and their kids, right? Intellectually, whatever. But we need to leave people who are happy with something the fuck alone.

Oh no, absolutely not, we don’t advocate anyone killing anyone there. “Abolishing the nuclear family” just means abolishing the setup as a dominant social institution. Like how conservatives always talk about “the family being the base of society” – they mean nuclear families, and that’s what capitalist society essentially expects of all of us. Two adults, one-to-three kids, quaintly living in whitewashed suburbia paying their own bills, finding community mainly only in each other, and upholding traditional gendered division of labor (cis/heteronormativity pretty much always implied). Obviously not every family fits neatly into that box, but it’s still an institutional expectation created by the capitalist economic system. Where it isn’t explicitly stated to be the “default setup” for humanity, it’s implicitly stated in dominant media. We just want the pressures of the institution gone and people more free to take on communal living, goals accomplished through a new socialist economic system. From there, nuclear families should, by all accounts, be free to live in peace just like the rest. Like @class-struggle-anarchism commented on this post, “abolish the compulsory nuclear family” is probably a more accurate statement of what we want to see.


“There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

“Yes, of couse democracy is directly or indirectly a form of communism. A majority decides what belongs to you or to me, what you and I may or may not do. That has nothing to do with private property, but a great deal to do with the relativization of property, that is with common property, in other words communism.”

- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

“In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other.”

- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

“A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person (a persona), but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal—of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a ‘free good’) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest).”

- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Hmmmmm I wonder why so many libertarians end up falling in line with reactionary movements?

It’s almost like believing in laissez-faire capitalism requires an ideal of a society in which the wealthy are naturally superior…

anonymous asked:

Money is tens of thousand of years old, it predates capitalism. The problem is the division of labor not money which simply represents labor and products, two things that will still be necessary post capitalism.

its at best, if you have a real loose definition of it maybe 30,000 years old, thats like 1% of human existence, and that isn’t in all societies, thats in select few societies. Money isn’t even universally used in societies today, cause yeah there are societies even today isolated from capitalism. 

Money is a problem. I don’t care how much you want to defend it. We can do things without it, humans do things without it, humans have been doing without it for the vast majority of our existence. This argument is trivial at best. 

We don’t need money to show how scarce items are and who should have them, some items must be eliminated as a whole [unsustainable items] and from there we can move to a society where scarcity isn’t a major concern, adding money to the mix only exploits those without it.

We have the technology that can do massive quantities of math for us to know exactly what should be allocated where like … money is archaic, we don’t need it, we can create systems far more efficient than it. 

money allows for those to amass it and exploit those who werent able to amass it. it leads to zero sum games lmao, the endgame is to have all the money. if you keep running the numbers playing the game where having the most worth leads to more goods and services you will end up with a concentration of it, and some services considered less worthy by those with more money, and of course those with the most money will dictate that whatever the fuck they do should be worth the most labor wise.

we see this today with hedge fund managers making more than fuckin idk doctors, teachers, janitors who definitely do more work than a fucking hedge fund manager.

all labor should be treated equally, and even those who cannot provide labor to society, all people should be treated to the same courtesies, if everyone is given the same access to goods and treatment and education and so on money is useless and unnecessary, everyone has the same access to everything, and we have the technology to make sure that stays sustainable. 

adding money to the mix simply allows people to fall to suffering if they lose it all. And putting worth on services is ridiculous as well, we need people to save lives, and we need people to clean bathrooms, both are necessary, yet if we add monetary value to the two, surely there are those that will argue the bathroom cleaners deserve less than the life savers when … if your bathroom isn’t clean it can say lead to mold outbreak and kill you. [extreme example but regardless]

And a lot of this shit can be automated anyway. labor and goods don’t need value attributed to them, it just creates a system where people resent others for doing certain jobs that either make more, less, or the same as their job. 

Instead we can focus on giving people what they need and allowing people to do as they like, and due to automation not everyone has to do “hated” jobs, and with free education and elimination of our current grading systems, which hold back and inhibit people from academic growth, would only lead to further automation and ways to be sustainable. 

If everyone is given what they need and to a lesser extent what they want within reason, then theres no reason to put worth on jobs or goods, because people are simply doing what they most want to do or can do, and living substantial lives while doing it. 

money is archaic and inefficient. attributing worth is qualitative at best, and hardly from biases, you can never truly find the exact worth of any given object or labor, it’s best to just give all as they need and allow all to do as they like without hinderances like how much theyre making and how much money they have to survive.

And frankly calling up the past is useless as well, we are beyond our ancestors technologically, we are beyond their archaic means of attributing worth. We don’t need it. As I’ve stated over and over again, we amass so much shit … worth is meaningless. it’s used only to withhold goods and services from others.

anonymous asked:

@your response about married people who don't want kids: the purpose of marriage is to create a family. I do not want to sound condescending or rude, but I urge you to please attend a church ceremony or something to that effect. I think involvement in a religious community could help you to see the true meaning of family the way Jesus wants it to be, and hopefully help to shift your views on this topic.

I’m actually thrilled to get this message, because as someone who is 2 months away from my sociology degree who has taken sociology of the family, anthropology and history courses, I’m really the wrong person to tell this to.

The purpose of marriage historically and culturally has been changing since the concept was created; however, it often served a purpose of creating a method to distribute property or secure alliances or power. [x] As stated in this BBC article, “"You established peaceful relationships, trading relationships, mutual obligations with others by marrying them.”

Throughout history, marriage has mostly been influenced by whatever economic roles it needs to fulfill. One family scholar defines family as this:

“[The family] consists of husband, wife, and children born in their wedlock,
though other relatives may find their place close to this nuclear group; and the
group is united by moral, legal, economic, religious, and social rights and
obligations (including sexual rights and prohibitions as well as such socially
patterned feelings as love, attraction, piety, and awe). (Coser [1964] 2004:13)
But even seemingly broad definitions of the family such as this are contested
by scholars who point out that families are not always based on heterosexuality
and marriage and do not always include children, nuclear households,
romantic love, or consensual sexual relations
(Gittins 1993).”

Also from the above paper:
“Empirical evidence on the origins of marriage is scant, as it evolved crossculturally at different times and has been defined in various ways. There is considerable agreement that as an institution, marriage is not as old as


“Across cultures, the most universal feature of marriage has been gender division of labor between men and women.”


“The property-like status of women was evident in Western societies like Rome and Greece, where wives were taken solely for the purpose of bearing legitimate children and, in most cases, were treated like dependents and 8——Families: A Social Class Perspective confined to activities such as caring for children, cooking, and keeping house (Ingoldsby 2006).”

Why is this all relevant? Because marriage is a social institution and constantly evolves and changes depending on what the society’s needs are. Obviously what you consider to be marriage now isn’t what it was like in ancient Greek or Roman times where marriage was used to trade women like property, or like how it was with ancient Anglo-Saxons where you married someone to create an alliance. Even in good ol’ Jesus’s time, if you even look at the bible, there are many parts of marriage written in it that are not there anymore (no one’s going to stone any adulterers or not touch any women on their periods anymore).

I highly suggest you read the “Evolution of Families and Marriages” paper, it summarizes the history of families and marriage very efficiently, and this paper as well.

All of this applies to the current world as well; not everyone abides by your church’s rules about marriage. You can look at the Nandi people of western Kenya as a great example. from this article:

“[…]women who are older (beyond child-bearing age), never married and have no children are prime candidates to become female husbands. This is because they will want an heir to inherit their name, wealth and property. A woman in this situation will find a younger woman to marry and bear her children. She will become a female husband by giving bride-wealth and observing all the other the rituals asked of a suitor by the bride’s family. The wife may have children with any man she wishes, or a man chosen by the female husband, but the legal and social ‘father’ of the children will be the female husband. The giving and receiving of bride-wealth accords the female husband the same rights over the children as any other husband (Sacks, 1982). As the social and legal father of the children, the female husband will support the children as would any other father, regardless of who the biological father may be.”

Essentially, for families that have no male heir to marry off, a woman from the family will take the ‘role’ of a man and marry women. they are fully considered ‘male’ in their society.

And my favorite more modern-day example is that of Nepal, where one woman will often marry two brothers. This is to ensure the survival of the family if one of the husbands dies off, and also avoids the splitting up to property as there is not much farmland to go around.

This isn’t even CONSIDERING that if you want to focus on marriage as an institution in the U.S right now, there are legal privileges that come with being married such as tax benefits of having visiting rights if your spouse is in the hospital. 

So, anon. the point of this all was that yes, you sound extremely condescending, and no, I’m not going to put up with it because you’re wrong in every sense of the way. I *have* been to church ceremonies, I was raised Roman Catholic, but I have been lucky enough to have been able to access an education that has expanded my worldview. 

The history of marriage has always been changing, and to say that your religion’s rather recent rules and regulations about what they believe marriage *should* be doesn’t make it correct. I urge you to look outside your poor little bubble of misinformation and actually read some of the articles I linked, and think twice before sending asinine messages like this again.

anonymous asked:

I'm sorry for the lightweight question, but this keeps coming up in my mind: the material I've read here establishes how life necessities and society-wide division of labor should be changed for the betterment of all, and I know that's most important, but how would current "luxury items" exist in that better society? Like, how would it be determined who would get the latest Playstation console, or be able to support several large pets, or have a large shoe collection, etc?

luxury items would no longer exist. luxury is only defined at the expense of the exploited. and with enough technological advancements and moves for sustainability … people could have pretty large shoe collections if they really wanted to … they could even learn how to make shoes, and due to having access to the means of production they could… produce their own shoes lmao all people would have more access to goods. 

of course the key word is sustainability, so many items will have to disappear entirely, such as oil, but even the richest of the future will not be able to afford that which does not exist so like we’re going to have to phase those out anyway, even for the multibillionaires … because it straight up isn’t sustainable and wont exist forever anyway.

Once we start making everything sustainable there wont really be a question of how to allocate things. and with greater access to education, and the elimination of GPAs hindering academic growth, more people will be able to work on solving these problems, opening up new goods and services to all of the world. 

We would finally be able to allocate more resources to working towards sustainability, as that would become the goal of the world, instead of amassing as much wealth as possible [which is pretty opposite to sustainability, as its more profitable to be unsustainable, as more scarcity = more cost associated with it generally] for instance we would have more incentive to make things last for as long as possible, rather than make things break down easily so others will continue to buy it creating more wealth for the producer but causing waste etc.

Again, it all comes down to our work on sustainability, which must be solved even today, so like eliminating unsustainable goods only makes people work harder towards creating sustainable goods all can partake in if they so please.

Work has been, throughout human history, an unfortunate necessity. It’s important to keep the lights on, and sometimes that takes work – but keeping the lights on is not what makes us human. It is merely a necessity that we can and must transcend if we are to be truly free. Freedom begins where work ends – the realm of freedom is after hours, on the weekend, on vacation, and not at work. And that remains true whether you work for a capitalist boss or a worker-owned cooperative. The space of work is still the realm of necessity and not of freedom.

Elsewhere, Marx even suggests that one day we may be able to free ourselves from the realm of necessity altogether. In ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’, he writes:

‘In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!’

Most of us are so accustomed to capitalist relations of production that it is hard to even imagine individuals who are not subordinated to 'division of labor.’ We’re used to having bosses who devise plans and then instruct us to carry them out; what Marx is suggesting is that it is possible to erase the barriers between those who make plans for their own benefit and those who carry them out – which would of course mean erasing the distinction between those who manage the businesses and those who make it run.

But it also means something even more radical: erasing the distinction between what counts as a business and what counts as a collective leisure activity. Only in that situation might we find that 'labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want.’ In that case, work wouldn’t be work at all any more, it would be what we actually choose to do with our free time. Then we could all obey the injunction to 'do what you love’ – not as a disingenuous apology for accepting exploitation, but as a real description of the state of existence. This is Marx as stoner philosophy: just do what you feel, man (from each according to their ability), and it’ll all be cool (to each according to their needs).

—  Peter Frase
[The] entire logical order, with its chains of inference and dependence, the superordination and coordination of concepts, is founded on the corresponding conditions in social reality, that is, on the division of labor. Of course, this social character of intellectual forms is not, as Durkheim argues, an expression of social solidarity but evidence of the impenetrable unity of society and power. Power confers increased cohesion and strength on the social whole in which it is established. The division of labor, through which power manifests itself socially, serves the self-preservation of the dominated whole. But this necessarily turns the whole, as a whole, and the operation of its immanent reason, into a means of enforcing the particular interest. Power confronts the individual as the universal, as the reason which informs reality.
—  Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment
Transgender Ideology Explained in Pseudo-Leftist and Pseudo-Radical Language: The Mental Gymnastics of “Trans Women Are Women”

In early 2015, I was a genderist. Eventually, my asking for help from a pro-trans ideology woman I admired to understand some things about trans ideology I had qualms with and couldn’t quite wrap my head around caused me to finally wake up to the cult that is mainstream contemporary trans ideology.

By then, I saw multiple sides of genderist/q-theorist Hell. There’s the ones whose bullshit I see deconstructed often by genderists themselves, you know the whole “gender identity is a feeling/brain sex/mental state/woman = feminine” and then there’s the other side of the coin, which is pretty much the same thing, but dressed up in leftist language. At first, I believed in the former, but for a long time I was duped by the latter, which I now view as more dangerous. Like, the faux radical q-theorists sound agreeable enough at first. They assert that yes, male and female socialization exists and that “gender identity” is an offensive idea, but then they start getting into bullshit by making up crap like “trans woman socialization is when you realize that male socialization is misdirected at you and you’re uncomfortable with it and thus you’re indirectly female socialized” and “biological sex is a social construct with no firm basis in reality because intersex people exist, so you’re not actually directly socialized from birth according to your perceived sex”. Same snakes, different faces. Like especially with the bullshit idea of “trans woman socialization is when you know female socialization is meant for you”, it’s literally just “brain sex” dressed up in different language because it implies there’s something innate about being female other than you know, being fucking female by sex that you simply “realize” or “discover” some day. That’s why I was duped for so long. (This paragraph is hyperlinked because I took it from a longer separate post of mine.)

The woman who I admired and asked for an explanation from was tumblr user medicine/thug, now known as cocobandicoot. Unfortunately, I do not have the questions I sent her, but I did manage to find her replies in my inbox.

As of now, I’m too lazy to dissect every message of hers for its bullshit, so I will instead just share it here without much commentary, so we can all lament at the atrocity that is this woman using leftist language to justify trans ideology and the mental gymnastics it takes to think “trans women” are women.

EDIT: I have now added my own commentary directed at cocobandicoot.

ANOTHER EDIT: I changed some instances where I wrote “female sex class” to “women” because in one of her messages cocobandicoot said “trans women” form their own class of women without uteruses, ovaries, and vaginas. That is bullshit too, of course, but I don’t want her to use that one slip-up against all of my points.

First Set:

“Woman” has absolutely never meant and never will mean “males with sex dysphoria and females without sex dysphoria who identify as women”. “Woman” has always meant adult human female. Humans are sexually dimorphic, and every language has/had a word for man and woman meaning as it does today: a human male or a human female. Before patriarchy, this was still the case.

It is clear that you are trying to assert this simply because you say so, and the fact that you are trying to justify your point as being valid in terms of class analysis is laughable. You do not understand materialism, and the fact that you are using leftist language to try and reason out a way to explain how “trans women”/men with a specific mental illness (sex dysphoria) are classed as women reveals your ignorance about this. You are partaking in revisionism in its most blatant form.

“Misogyny is Revisionism Part 1: On the Left’s “Woman” Problem” by Zachary George Najarian-Najafi encapsulates exactly why you are wrong.

The Marxist left finds itself confronted by three insidious big lies that threaten the revolutionary and emancipatory foundation of the Marxist project, all related to undermining women’s liberation; they are:

1. Transwomen are women.

2. Sex work is work.

3. Feminism is bourgeois.

Misogyny in its many forms has long been a challenge for the left; not just the misogyny of the reactionary right, but misogyny coming from within the left itself. But it has not been until recently that this leftist misogyny has sought to portray itself as being inherently progressive. By engaging in revisionism of the most blatant kind, reactionary elements within the left have managed to posit themselves as the agents of progress. Much has already been written about the harms caused by these three lies, but no attempt has yet to be made to debunk them from a solidly Marxist standpoint. That is what we are out to accomplish here; to demonstrate definitively that these big lies are not just regressive, but inherently revisionist and anti-Marxist to the core.

The first of these three big lies, “Transwomen are women”, might well be the most damaging, because it directly contradicts the heart of the Marxist method: dialectical materialism. There are two main definitions used by proponents of transgenderism to explain their narrative. The first is that gender is an identity; the state of being a man or a woman (or any one of the other numerous “gender identities”) stems not from biological sex (to the extent that transactivists acknowledge the existence of biological sex), but from an internal identity, i.e. personal feelings, personal consciousness. The second definition says that transpeople are not really the sex they physically are, but the sex they say they are, because they really have “male” or “female” brains. Both of these definitions are rooted in the personal, not the material. One of the patron saints of queer theory, Judith Butler, says:

“It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”[1]

Though queer theory is a postmodernist philosophy, its roots go far deeper than just postmodernism; rather, this statement of Butler’s is an example of the dialectics of idealism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was formed in reaction to the idealist dialectics of the Young Hegelians. The dialects of idealism posit that reality flows from consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, argued “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[2] That is, it is not our thoughts that shape material reality, but material reality that shapes our thoughts. In fact, Marx’s first major work, The German Ideology, is exclusively dedicated to explaining this.

So what is the materialist definition of gender? And how does the embrace of the idealist definition under the guise of Marxism harm the Marxist aim of women’s liberation? The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”[3]Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.

But we have not yet dealt with the concept of gender. In the current queer theory dominated discourse, sex and gender are increasingly become conflated to the point that they are being used as synonyms for one another. Engels analysis of patriarchy is in many ways incomplete, but it forms the basis of future materialist explorations of sex and gender. The second-wave feminists who developed much of the thought around gender did not revise these fundamentals, but expanded on them, the opposite of what today’s revisionists are doing. Gender, according to the radical feminist Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, is “the value system that prescribes and proscribes forms of behaviour and appearance for members of the different sex classes, and that assigns superior value to one sex class at the expense of the other.”[4]Gender is therefore not the same thing as biological sex, but a kind of parasite grafted on top of biological sex to maintain the current sexual hierarchy, and ensure continued male control over reproductive labor. Gender non-conforming, as well as homosexual, men and women are therefore “exiled” from their gender community not because of some abstract identity, but because they do not fulfill their proscribed functions as members of their sex class; they are essentially class traitors.

Thus, the fact that you see the persecution of “trans women”/males with sex dysphoria as evidence as to how they are women is, again, laughable. In doing so, you are partaking in a kind of essentialism that posits women as being defined by their oppression. What makes your “analysis” even more poorly done is the fact that you seem to think that the persecution of “trans women” is anything like actual misogyny.

But to reiterate, none of this has to do with identity, but with the material structuring of class society…

While transactivists have started to turn against the biomedical explanation for transgenderism, it is very much alive and well in the medical and psychological community. Victorian-era theories about “brain sex” that would have earned the ire of Marx and Engels are now making a comeback. At best, these theories are chimerical pseudoscience which have not even come close to being conclusively proven in any legitimate scientific study. The standards by which gender dysphoria is diagnosed falls back on the constructed tropes of masculinity and femininity already discussed. Such theories risk misconstruing gender roles as being rooted in nature as opposed to constructions that reinforce ruling class control. Rather than being seen as the disease, dysphoria should be seen as the symptom of the sexual hierarchy. The pressures of gendered socialization are ubiquitous, and begin at birth. Very often we are not aware of the subtle forms socialization exerts upon us. For those who reject this socialization, it follows that they would experience levels of extreme discomfort and anguish. Gendered socialization is not just some abstract phenomena, but is, again, literally grafted onto us. Under this system of socialization, the penis becomes more than just the male sex organ, but the symbol of male aggression and supremacy, in the same way the vagina becomes the symbol of female inferiority and subjugation. Sensitive individuals who struggle against this socialization often hate their bodies, but not because their bodies are somehow “wrong”, but because of what they are drilled into believing their bodies are. What they suffer from is the inability to tear away the curtain that has been placed in front of material reality and to see reality in an objective manner. The fields of medical and psychological science are not immune from the influence of the ruling class. This is especially the case in the world of psychology, where a method of analysis is employed that isolates the individual from the wider society around them, preferring to view internal struggle as the result of some defect as opposed to the result of material and social forces exerted on the individual.

While capitalism has broken down certain elements of patriarchy, and allowed for women to make some gains, it has not dismantled patriarchy completely. Capitalism, being a class system, still needs to retain control of the means of reproduction. For example, laws that restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, while having negative repercussions for all women, have the most negative impact on poor, working-class women. These laws may be cloaked in the terminology of moralism, but have a far more base logic; they ensure the continued production of future proletarians for the benefit of the capitalist machine.

By shifting the definition of “woman” away from a materialist one to an idealistic one, we lose the ability to define and fight the causes of women’s oppression. In its most extreme form it erases women as a class, and makes it impossible to talk about patriarchy as an existing force. Why, then, are Marxists, who are supposed to be dialectical materialists embracing a set of ideas the very opposite of dialectical materialism? To answer this, we need to look at the nature of patriarchy; it is a system that predates capitalism. As already stated above, patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another. The one cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the other. Overthrowing capitalism is not the same as overthrowing class. As Mao pointed out, class dynamics still exist in the socialist society, and require continuous vigilance and combat on the part of revolutionaries. This is why many socialist states still restricted women’s rights to certain degrees, such as the draconian anti-abortion laws of Ceausescu’s Romania. All males benefit in some way from patriarchy, even males in a socialist society. It therefore follows that socialist males fighting capitalism also benefit from patriarchy. While men and women may be in solidarity with one another as workers, working class men also belong to the male sex class, a class that predates the existence of the modern working class. Class allegiances run deep. This is why so many socialist and “feminist” men are quick to defend and even endorse the violent language and actions perpetrated by some gender non-conforming men against the female sex class, regardless of how these gender non-conforming men identify themselves. This is not to deny that gender non-conforming men are discriminated against, and face harassment and violence themselves, but even as exiles from the male sex-class, they still benefit from some of the privileges awarded to this sex class. Note that I do not use privilege in the manner it’s currently used by the regressive left, i.e. as some abstract notion that needs to be “checked”. Rather, it is an actually existing force that must be combated, just as white revolutionaries must actively combat white supremacy, and first world revolutionaries must actively combat “their” state’s imperialism… it is possible to defend gender non-conforming people without embracing misogynistic pseudoscience and revisionism.

Women are not just oppressed, but thoroughly exploited. Working class women make up what is possibly the most thoroughly exploited section of human society. By embracing philosophies that not only erase their ability to define and explain their exploitation, but also deny them the agency to organize as a revolutionary class, these “Marxists” have proven that they are in direct contradiction to Marxist philosophy and ideas. They are engaging in revisionism.

Female socialization starts from birth and sex dysphoria does not. Sex dysphoria is when males think they are “supposed” to have female bodies; thus, men with sex dysphoria are very much aware of the fact they have male bodies, they are not under the impression that they are actually biologically female. So no, they are not female socialized, and males being socialized to see themselves as superior beings is not being “misdirected” at “trans women”. If a “trans woman” actually thinks he is biologically female, that is a delusion, not a symptom of sex dysphoria.

Speaking of delusions, the only mental illness in which it is encouraged to support the delusions of the afflicted is now sex dysphoria, thanks to people like you who think it is impossible to acknowledge that “trans women” are not women without being complicit in the murder of “trans women”. Affirming someone’s delusions does not help the mentally ill, this is obvious when it comes to illnesses like psychosis, but apparently to not affirm the fantasies of transgender people is “violence”.

“I’m supposed to have a vagina, therefore I am a woman, and the fact that I am being raised to be violent sexually, physically, and emotionally towards women is made null by the fact that I am supposedly adopting the messages being directly socialized to actual females like my sister, and thus am being indirectly female socialized… this is trans female socialization,” …Yeah, no, that’s not how female socialization fucking works.

And if “trans women” were really female socialized, an innumerable amount of them would not commit male-pattern violence, like raping and murdering women and children and attempting to forcibly impregnate them.

Second Set:

Your attempts at justifying calling trans women’s penises “clits” make me fucking sick. That is completely biologically nonsensical and this is cotton ceiling rhetoric. Clitorises are not analogous to penises; women do not have urethras in their clits and it is not meant for reproduction, unlike penises which is where men feel sexual pleasure, piss out of, and inseminate women with.

Now about you partaking in cotton ceiling rhetoric… Let’s look at a post you made awhile back.


on a serious note if a “progressive” person is telling you that you must not have any sexual boundaries whatsoever about genitals, they are either manipulating you or they are being coerced into promoting an aspect of r*pe culture from their peers. i’m not gon disclose my tragic emo backstory but run in the opposite direction if you see this regardless of what your gender is.

“Sexual boundaries”, eh? “Sexual boundaries” is pro-trans ideology people’s nifty term for “sexual orientation”, and of course cotton ceiling advocates/anti-lesbian rape advocates think “sexual boundaries” relating to sex are bigoted, violent, and exclusionary. A lesbian (female homosexual) not wanting to sexually interact with male genitals/penises is not a “boundary” because penises were out of the question in the fucking first place. It was and never will be an option.

You promoting the idea that penis can be female is cotton ceiling rhetoric and apologia, and while you stop short of being a cotton ceiling advocate and are in fact a victim of cotton ceiling rhetoric/rape culture due to your heavily implied rape by a “trans woman” yourself, you are still partaking in the same rape culture that you were victimized by, and are doing a gross disservice to both yourself and other victims, especially victims who see cotton ceiling rhetoric for what it is and call it out. I truly believe that you will not be able to begin to heal from your trauma until you stop skirting around the reality that a man raped you, a lesbian, with his penis, not his “clit”.

Third Set:

Throughout your messages, you mention having most of your conclusions being drawn by “trans women”, whom you relied on to understand how they are women. It reminded me a lot of this post by theradicalresistance:

I don’t believe those liberal/queer feminist women who support the transgender agenda and trans women… blindly actually believe themselves trans women are women just like any woman (as in: there is no difference whatsoever). Why? The biggest clue is the way they treat them with such utter care and consideration, such total subserviantness and submission. They would never treat actual women like that. These are women who silence and demonize vulnerable and traumatized women in prostitution who speak up about the industry; women who dehumanize and belittle girls and women facing female genital mutilation or abortion bans; women who claim violence against women can be “empowering” and use slurs against other women who don’t agree with them. They don’t treat trans women like women. They treat them like men: with utter subserviantness and submission.

Fourth Set:

I am not really going to comment here because this message was mostly just about your own personal struggles and I have already said enough as to explain why “trans women” are not women.

In conclusion to your whole set of messages, though, I must reiterate what I said in the beginning: your idea of “trans women” being female socialized and thus women because of their apparent magical brain receptions is just “brain sex” rhetoric twisted a little bit and sprinkled with incorrectly used leftist language, and brain sex is not real.


I realize that this graphic is hard to read and a bit too MS Paint-y for the taste of some, but I wanted to create a chart for people who may have wanted some basic political-economy, spanning capitalism to communism, graphed out. Some things to keep in mind:

  • I’m using the Marxist-Luxemburgist conceptions of socialism and communism. Decentralized democratic worker councils managing the economy in a context where the state may still exist is a very council communist///libertarian Marxist path, so I realize that it may not sync up with everyone’s views on the socialism/communism question. 
  • By “epoch of liberalism”, I mean an era of history where concern for individual accumulation stunts human development and where objects dominate humans – i.e. competition and a wider market economy. Production takes place for the sake of accumulation of profit, not for the sake of social utility or individual passion.
  • By extension, the “epoch of liberationism” is an era of social development where people can finally produce for use and disregard the antiquated ebb and flow of “profitability” and the market forces. Communities coordinate what, where, and how to produce democratically and arrive at conclusions for how to tally production
  • I still hold to the belief that mutualism is fundamentally the true “mix of capitalism and socialism” that liberals assume of social democracy. Merging the markets of capitalism and the flat organizational structure of socialism, you’re left with the best possible system that can still be described as “liberal” in certain respects. (It’s for this reason that I think it should take the place of mid- and late-stage capitalism in the dialectical development of societies that haven’t yet reached a level of abundance necessary for socialism. It could be a case of Monday morning quarterback, however, since we do currently have the abundance necessary for international socialism, but I still stand by this “analogous liberal system” idea if necessary.)
  • And finally, I of course mean “class stratification” and “classlessness” in the Marxian sense, with regard to a division between elite property-owners who buy labor and dispossessed workers/users who sell labor. Classlessness does not mean that everyone must have the same amount of stuff; it simply means that the sources of wealth are held in common and private property is abolished. General social egalitarianism is implied, but it doesn’t mean that there must be a strict code where everyone has the exact same stuff (or amount of stuff). 
  • Anarchists: so we’re very similar to communism in our origins and ideals but what we want are decentralized self-governed societies based on voluntary participation and principles such as an end to all forms of oppression, mutual aid and a division of labor and resources in which each works according to their ability and received according to their need. Basic elements of how we want to achieve that are an end to capitalism, seizing the wealth of the rich, and the abolition of the state, police and prisons but also the end of white supremacy, sexist, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-semitism, speciesm and all systems of oppression in every part of our life as well as an immediate end to environmental polution and animal cruelty. This includes the distruction of gender roles, the nuclear family and other normative systems that sustain inequality. Practical tools are community organizing, transformative justice, direct action, militant anti-fascism, cooperative illegalism and solidarity with all opressed minorities. Further...
  • Ancap: So, self-governed means no rules and lots of guns, am I right? Work or starve, am I right? Fuck taxes, am I right? Fuck regulations of any kind, am I right?
  • Anarchists: No. It sounds like what you like is Capitalism with even less restrictions than there are now. That's exactly what we don't like.
  • Ancap: No rules and lots of guns! Yay anarchism!
  • Anarchists: *punches ancap*

With regard to the debates about intersectionality and class, there is a major confusion that always comes up that i think is worth addressing.

A twin error that both the majority of Marxists and their critics make is to treat class as if it is one of many structures alongside sex/gender, race, nation, and so on. Given that the foundational principle of Marxism is the primacy of social class, most Marxists interpret this to mean that class–understood as one of a number of social structures–should be asserted to be more important than the other structures in society. Other social structures may exists and have various effects, but apparently, only one of them (class) is the “motive force of history” and thus class takes practical priority.

Critics rightfully question whether it makes sense to simply pick out one of society’s structures and assert it to be primary. Marxists are at pains to explain why one particular structure encapsulates and conditions all others, and i would agree with critics that Marxists who stay within this problematique do not make a convincing case. Marxists often make vague gestures to the predominance of relations of production, but they frequently fail to make a solid connection between the “base-superstructure” model (itself usually understood in a mechanical way) and the thesis of the primacy of class, especially when in practice “other” determinations like race or sex seem to have larger effects on the motions of events. Critics of Marxist approaches sometimes posit that a better way of conceptualizing the various oppression in society is to see social structures as like a rug–a set of interweaving threads that produce a coherent whole–rather than a strict hierarchy where one structure predominates over all others. Of course the weakness here is that intersectionality theories tend to only get as far as saying that structures interact, without being clear about how.

I think what both of these approaches fail to understand is that the real lesson of Marxism is not that one social structure is treated as primary. Class struggle is indeed the motive force of history. But this is because class is not a structure at all but is in fact the global effect of the interaction of the various structures of society. Class is what happens where the various social structures–sex/gender, race, nation, and economic structures (such as the social division of labor)–fuse to produce two antagonistic forces which determine the motion of historical events

It must be said that economic structures, and in particular the social division of labor, is foundational to this process for a couple of reasons. First, because production is what creates and satisfies any society’s basic needs, the struggle over production will play the most fundamental role in determining historical movement in the sense that the struggle over production set the boundaries of what is physically possible within a given set of relations. Any transformative movement must in turn be a struggle over production at a basic level. Second, the relations of production group people together in such a way that they tend to develop common interests and goals with other people in the same economic stratum. In other words, a common place in the social division of labor ends up being the groundwork upon which a broad, common consciousness, national bond, and political organization can emerge.

However, the relations of production and the social division of labor cannot be substituted for class itself. Although these structures are foundational to the process through which classes develop, economic structures are only some of the structures that interplay to produce classes. When we say that class struggle is primary, this ultimately means that none of the social structures by themselves–not sex/gender, not race, not nation, not even the social division of labor–can be said to be a “motive force.” It is precisely because class is the global effect of all of these different structures, what happens at the point where the various contradictions of society fuse, that class struggle is transformative.

This has many implications but in the context of the present discussions i’ve seen on tumblr, it makes sense of issues of race and nation in the united states. Radical struggles have obviously (and predictably) emerged principally among the poor. But national struggles have played an elevated role within the u.s. in the formation of classes. For example, historically the centers of “proletarianization” have been within Indigenous- and African liberation struggles. Meanwhile the resistant actions of Amerikan workers (”whites”) have largely been stunted by perpetual relapses into reaction and national chauvinism. This is not an example of class taking a back seat to “other” determinations (nor of “false consciousness” among a pre-given Amerikan “working class”). Rather, it is an example of how national structures are a critical component of the formation of class itself.

Writing Research - The Roaring Twenties

The Roaring Twenties is a term sometimes used to refer to the 1920s in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, characterizing the decade’s distinctive cultural edge in New York City, Chicago, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles and many other major cities during a period of sustained economic prosperity. French speakers called it the “années folles” (“Crazy Years”), emphasizing the era’s social, artistic, and cultural dynamism.

Normalcy returned to politics in the wake of hyper-emotional patriotism after World War I, jazz music blossomed, the flapper redefined modern womanhood, and Art Deco peaked. Economically, the era saw the large-scale diffusion and use of automobiles, telephones, motion pictures, and electricity, unprecedented industrial growth, accelerated consumer demand and aspirations, and significant changes in lifestyle and culture. The media focused on celebrities, especially sports heroes and movie stars, as cities rooted for their home team and filled the new palatial cinemas and gigantic stadiums. In most major countries women won the right to vote for the first time. Finally the Wall Street Crash of 1929 ended the era, as the Great Depression set in, bringing years of worldwide gloom and hardship.

The social and cultural features known as the Roaring Twenties began in leading metropolitan centers, especially Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Paris and London, then spread widely in the aftermath of World War I. The United States gained dominance in world finance. Thus when Germany could no longer afford war reparations to Britain, France and other Allies, the Americans came up with the Dawes Plan and Wall Street invested heavily in Germany, which repaid its reparations to nations that in turn used the dollars to pay off their war debts to Washington. By the middle of the decade, prosperity was widespread, with the second half of the decade later becoming known as the “Golden Twenties”.

The spirit of the Roaring Twenties was marked by a general feeling of discontinuity associated with modernity and a break with traditions. Everything seemed to be feasible through modern technology. New technologies, especially automobiles, moving pictures and radio proliferated “modernity” to a large part of the population. Formal decorative frills were shed in favor of practicality in both daily life and architecture. At the same time, jazz and dancing rose in popularity, in opposition to the mood of the specter of World War I. As such, the period is also often referred to as the Jazz Age. [1] [2]


  • Social Security Administration - Top Names of the 1920s
  • Popular Baby Names in 1920s
  • Nebraska Health and Human Services - 50 Most Frequent Names in Nebraska, 1920-2013
  • Baby Name Science - Popular New Jersey Boy Baby Names in 1920
  • Baby Name Science - Popular New Jersey Girl Baby Names in 1920
  • British Baby Names - The Top Names in England and Wales 1924
  • Naming Across the Pond - Best of the Twenties
  • eHow - Jewish Names in 1920
  • The NY Times - Baby name data from 1920-2008 from New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
  • BabyCenter - Most Popular Names in Spain (Pre-1920 and 1920s)
  • GlobalNews - Interactive: 93 Years of Ontario Baby Names, 1917-2010
  • BabyMed - Top German Baby Names, 1920s

Society & Life

  • - The Roaring Twenties
  • BBC - The 1920s Overview
  • Ohio State University - 1920s Introduction
  • Indiana Historical Society - 1920s and the Great Depression
  • Maine Historical Society - An Evening in the 1920s
  • Scholastic Press - The United States Turns Inward: The 1920s and 1930s
  • University of Houston - Overview of the 1920s
  • University of Houston - Chapter 2: The Roaring Twenties (PDF)
  • Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History - The Roaring Twenties
  • Lone Star College - American Cultural History: Decade 1920-1929
  • Stanford History Education Group - World War I and the 1920s
  • Study Notes - Chapter 32: American Life in the “Roaring Twenties,” 1919-1929
  • American History: ‘Roaring Twenties’ a Time of Economic and Social Change
  • Iowa Public Television - The Great Depression Begins: The 1920s
  • United States Department of Labor - Chapter 2: The 1920s and the Start of the Depression, 1921-1933
  • North Carolina Encyclopedia - Women in the 1920s
  • BBC - The Changing Role of American Women in the 1920s
  • Ohio State University - New Women
  • National Women’s History Museum - Women in the Progressive Era
  • University of Minnesota Duluth - Jazz and Women’s Liberation
  • - Flappers and Mothers: The Women’s Movement and Feminism in the 1920s
  • New York Public Library - Everyday Life and Women in America, 1800-1920
  • American History - Working and Voting: Women in the 1920s
  • West Virginia Division Culture and History - “Women’s Work, Never Done”: West Virginia Farm Women, 1880s-1920s
  • Telegraph - Diary of a 1920s Bridget Jones
  • Flappers in the Roaring Twenties
  • U.S. History - Flappers
  • Smithsonian - The History of the Flapper, Part 1: A Call for Freedom
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - Pets in America
  • Kansas Historical Society - Children in Kansas: 1890s - 1920s
  • Library of Congress - Children’s Lives at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (PDF)
  • Prezi - Children and Schooling in the 1920’s
  • University of Iowa - Children Playing. Lebabon, Ohio, 1920s
  • - Child Labor
  • Public Schools in the 1920s in the New York City and Virginia
  • Vintage Kids and Babies Ads in the 1920s
  • University of Toronto - Education in the 1920s
  • Prezi - Canada in the 1920s: Teenagers and School Life and Discipline
  • Prezi - Teenagers of the 1920s
  • 1920s American Culture: City Life & Values - US History II
  • Wessels Living History Farm - 1920s Farm Life
  • Dhahran British Grammar School - Farming in the 1920s
  • The Living City - New York City: Life in the 1920s
  • An Amazing Photographic Tour of New York In The 1920s
  • Digital Harlem Blog - Harlem in the 1920s
  • The New York Times - Listening to the Roar of 1920s New York
  • Smithsonian Institution - American on the Move: New York Connected, 1920s
  • BuzzFeed - Then Vs. Now: 1920s New York City
  • W. W. Norton & Company - Chapter 5: New York in the 1920s
  • Prezi - New York City in the 1920s
  • Britannia - Distorted: Europe in the 1920’s
  • NPR - Let Frivolity Reign: London’s Roaring 1920s
  • The Guardian - Color footage of London in the 1920s (Photos)
  • 1920-1929: Explore the 20th Century London
  • Historic UK - The 1920s, the Roaring Twenties, in Britain
  • My London Life - London Life in the 1920’s
  • BBC America - Snapshot: 21 Photos of 1920s London
  • Daily Mail Online - Open-topped Buses, Flat Claps and Bobbies on the Beat: Color Video of 1920s London
  • History Today - Wish You Were Here? Britain Between the Wars
  • Daily Mail Online - On the production line in the 20s and 30s: Forgotten photographs chart the progress of industry at castings company in Derby
  • Nature Travel Egypt - Egypt in the 1920s
  • BBC - Travelling to Egypt - the culture of 1920s exploration
  • National Geographic Society - Curse of the Mummy
  • National Geographic Society - Port Said, Egypt, Circa 1920
  • Tutmania in the Roaring Twenties: When Ancient Egypt was in Vogue
  • University of California, Santa Barbara - 20th Century Archaeology
  • British Airways - Explore Our Past: 1920 - 1929
  • BBC - The Romance of 1920s Train Travel (Photos)
  • Fordham University - The Fate of Ocean Travel
  • North Carolina Encyclopedia - Transportation improvements in the 1920s
  • France: The Parisian Life in The 1920’s
  • Wikipedia - 1920 in France
  • Youtube - Seeing Paris in 1920s: Part One (Video)
  • Prezi - 1920’s in Paris
  • Americans in Paris - Paris in the 1920s: Changes in Society Lead to Changes in Fashion
  • Chicago Tribune - Ah, Paris of the 1920s
  • Indiana University - Paris and Berlin in the 1920s
  • The National - Berlin in the 1920s: Anything but Calm Before Storm
  • Wikipedia - 1920s Berlin
  • International Center of Photography - Berlin Street Photography, 1920s-30s (Photos)
  • The Wall Street Journal - Experiencing the 1920s in Berlin, Germany
  • Texas State Historical Association - Texas in the 1920s
  • The Huffington Post - What The 1920s Was Really Like
  • City of Clarence: Tasmania, Australia - Life in Clarence in the 1920s and 1930s (PDF)
  • Belfast Telegraph - Pictures of Northern Ireland in the 1920s
  • Waterloo Region Record - The Great Depression hit Canada the Hardest
  • Prezi - Canadian Lives in the 1920s and 1930s
  • Wikipedia - 1920s in Canada
  • Canada in the 1920s
  • Bentley Historical Library - Detroit and the Great Migration 1916-1929
  • 1920’s Garden: Privacy, Shelter, and Unified Design
  • Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales - A 1920s Garden Revisited
  • 1920’s Interior Decorating: Simplicity in Design
  • 1920’s Residential and Commercial Architecture
  • BBC - 1920s Homes
  • Bricks & Brass: Designs of the Period House - 1920-1929
  • American Vintage House Styles: A Brief History of Middle-class American Residential Architecture from 1900 to 1960
  • American Vintage House Styles: 1920s Bathroom Design
  • American Vintage House Styles: Gallery of 1920s Bedrooms
  • American Vintage House Styles: Gallery of 1920s Kitchen
  • Vintage Household Ads of the 1920s
  • Vintage Household Furniture Ads of the 1920s
  • 1920’s Automobiles: Auto Industry Consolidation and Vehicle Mass Production
  • Brigham Young University - Love and Romance in the 1920s
  • Prezi - Marriages in the 1920s VS, Marriages Today
  • NPR - Interracial Family Prevails in 1920s Alabama
  • Northern Kentucky University - Prosperity of Urban Families in the 1920’s
  • Prezi - Family Life in the 1920s
  • The Huffington Post - Dating in the 1920s: Lipstick, Booze and the Origins of Slut-Shaming
  • The Gloss - What Dating Was Like in the 1920s
  • Prezi - Dating in the 1920s and early 30s
  • University of Oxford - The Sex Age: Gender, Sexuality and Culture in 1920s Britain
  • History Today - Sex and the Automobile in the Jazz Age
  • Ohio State University - Sexuality
  • University of Michigan - Lesbian History: Between the World Wars
  • Prezi - Homosexuality in the 1920’s
  • US Today - In 1920, Harvard purged Gays…
  • American Psychological Association - History of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Social Movements
  • The Guardian - Pride and Prejudice in the 1920s
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - Harlem Life: Black Families and Everyday Life in the 1920s and 1930s
  • Prezi - How did Life Change for African Americans in the 1920s?
  • Ohio State University - African American New Women
  • - Great Migration: Black History
  • University of Houston - The Great Migration
  • Yale University - The Harlem Renaissance: Black American Traditions
  • Vintage Car Ads of the 1920s
  • Wikipedia - 1920s Automobiles
  • Vintage Oil and Gas Ads of the 1920s
  • British Pathe - Cairo 1920s-1960s (Video)
  • BBC - The Journey to Egypt: Travelling to Egypt & the Culture of 1920s Exploration


  • The Cost of Living - 1920
  • The People History - Food, Groceries and Toiletries Prices in the 1920s
  • The People History - Electrical Goods and Appliances Prices in the 1920s
  • The People History - Examples of Houses for Sale in the 1920s
  • The People History - Fashion, Clothing and Accessories from the 1920s: Prices and Examples
  • The People History - Furniture Prices in the 1920s
  • Bryant University - Consumer Prices of the 1920s
  • Vintage Money, Insurance and Banking Ads of the 1920s
  • Statistics Canada - Prices of a Family Budget of Staple Foods, Fuel, Lighting and Rent, for 60 Cities in Canada: 1920 to 1936
  • Vintagedancer - What Clothing Cost in the 1920s


  • 1920’s Women Fashions: Freedom from Corsets
  • Victoriana - 1920s Clothing
  • Fashion Era - 1920s Flapper Fashion History
  • Fashion Era - 1920s Photography of Flappers
  • Fashion Era - 1920-1930 Wedding Fashion History
  • 1920’s and 1930’s Hairstyles: Transition from Long to Short Hair
  • The Huffington Post - 1920s Hairstyles That Defined The Decade, From The Bob To Finger Waves
  • Fashion Era - Hats and Hair Fashion History in 1920s
  • 1920’s Jewelry: Classic Geometric Jewelry Designs
  • University of Vermont - Women’s Clothing: 1920s
  • Vintage Jewelry and Watches Ads of the 1920s
  • Vintage Perfume Ads of the 1920s
  • Glamourdaze - The History of 1920s Makeup
  • ELLE UK - 1920’s Make-up Looks
  • Smithsonian Institution - The History of the Flapper, Part 2: Makeup Makes a Bold Entrance
  • Duke University Libraries - Cosmetics of 1920s Ads
  • Glamourdaze -  The Beauty Secrets of 1920s Parisian (French) Women
  • Wikipedia - Cosmetics in the 1920s
  • Houston Chronicle - Swimsuits from the 1920s to Today (Photos)
  • Fashion Era - Women’s Swimwear from 1920 to 2000
  • Victoria and Albert Museum - Dating Clothes & Photographs from the 1920s
  • University of Brighton, England - 1920s Fashion
  • Vintage Clothes/Fashion Ads of the 1920s
  • University of Vermont - Men’s Fashion: 1920s
  • BBC - 1920s Fashion
  • The People History - 1920s Children’s Fashion

Entertainment & Food

  • PBS - The Devil’s Music: 1920’s Jazz
  • PBS - Jazz in Time: Roaring Twenties 
  • New York Historical Society - Jazz of the 1920s and '30s
  • University of Minnesota Duluth - A New Jazz Culture
  • - The Influence of Jazz on Women’s Fashion and Society in the 1920s
  • 1920’s Food: Introduction of Processed Foods
  • University of Chicago Press - Recipes from the Twentieth Century: 1920
  • The Food Timeline - 1920s: Prohibition-era Foods & Speakeasy Dining
  • The Guardian - Downton, Parade’s End and British food between the wars
  • Vintage Food Ads of the 1920s
  • - Prohibition, Speakeasies and Finger Foods
  • HubPages - A 1920s Menu: What Did People Eat in the 1920s?
  • Global Post - Desserts From the '20s
  • Old Time Candy - 1920s Candy
  • Vintage Candy Ads of the 1920s
  • Texas State Historical Association - Soft Drink Industrial
  • Telegraph - Cocktail Recipes: Drink like it’s the 1920s
  • Vintage Drinks Ads of the 1920s
  • Vintage Coke/Coca-Cola Ads of the 1920s
  • Vintage Alcohol Ads of the 1920s
  • Bonjour Paris - Paris Jazz Age: New Generation Explodes in Paris, 1920s
  • Prezi - Entertainment in the 1920s
  • Atlantic City Weekly - Atlantic City Nightlife Circa 1920s
  • Wikipedia - Speakeasy
  • Mail Online - Inside the Speakeasies of the 1920s: The hidden drinking spots that transformed New York City’s
  • Prezi - The Party Life of the 1920s
  • Vintage Movies, Theater, and Entertainment Ads of the 1920s
  • University of California, Berkeley Libraries - Vamps, Flappers, and Shieks: Films of The 1920s
  • IMDb: Most Popular Feature Films Released 1920 to 1929
  • Hollywood Movie Memories - 1920’s Movie Stars
  • Elon University - 1920s-1960s: Television
  • Vintage Electronics/TV Ads of the 1920s
  • University at Albany, The State University of New York - Movies, Music, and Sports of the 1920s
  • University of Minnesota Duluth - The Great Jazz Musicians of 1920s
  • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - America’s Music in the 1920s (PDF)
  • 1920’s Music: Jazz, Ragtime, and Musical
  • Vintage Music Ads of the 1920s
  • 1920’s Literature: Books Reflected Changes in Society
  • University of California, Berkeley - The Books of the Century, 1920-1929
  • Stylist Magazine - The 50 Best Books of the 1920s
  • Wikipedia - 1920 in Literature
  • Ranker - Bestselling Novels of the '20s: 1920 to 1929
  • Toronto Public Library - Roaring Times: 1890s to 1920s
  • Vintage Books, Magazines, and Newspaper Ads of the 1920s
  • eHow - American Writing Styles of the 1920s
  • Montgomery College - The Lost Generation: American Writers of the 1920’s
  • 1920’s Toys: New Materials and Mass Production
  • 1920’s Art: The Are of Surrealism and Art Deco
  • Scholastic Press - Surrealism: 1920s-1940s
  • 1920’s Dancing: New Styles of Dancing and Music Evolved
  • BBC - About BBC News
  • Wikipedia - 1920 in Sports
  • York University Library - The Golden Age of Women and Sport in Canada (PDF)
  • Prezi - Canadian Sports Heroes of the 1920s
  • North Carolina Encyclopedia - Sports in the 1920s
  • George Mason University - The National Pastime in the 1920s: The Rise of the Baseball Fans
  • Prezi - Popular Pastimes of the 1920s
  • Ask About Ireland - Games Children Play on the 1920s
  • Victoriana -  1920s Party: Correct Behavior on a Picnic


  • The Huffington Post - Flappers’ Dictionary: How To Talk The 1920s Talk
  • Antique Automobile Club of America - Slang of the 1920
  • - 20 Words that Originated in the 1920s
  • KCTS 9 Public Television - Flapper Slang: Talk the 1920s Talk
  • The Wired - How to Sound Like the Bee’s Knees: A Dictionary of  1920s Slang
  • BuzzFeed - The A-Z’s Of 1920s Slang
  • Thought Catalog - 59 Quick Slang Phrases From 1920s

Health, Hygiene & Medicine

  • University of California, Berkeley - Life Expectancy in the USA, 1900-98
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics - Life Expectancy Trends, 1881-2009
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - Life Expectancy in Canada: An Overview
  • Statistics Canada - Life Expectancy at Birth, by Sex, by Province
  • University of Alcalá - The Pharmaceutical Century: 1920 to 1930
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - Prematurity as a public health problem: US policy from the 1920s to the 1960s
  • United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use in the United States
  • Social Security Association - 1900s to 1920s
  • Vintage Medicine Ads of the 1920s
  • - Drink Some Whiskey, Call in the Morning: Doctors & Prohibition
  • Ohio State University - Medicinal Alcohol: Temperance & Prohibition
  • 1920’s Medicine: Nobel Prize Winning Medical Discoveries
  • Cambridge University Press - Health and Health Services in British Malaya in the 1920s
  • Canadian Public Health Association - Milestones in Public Health: 1920 to 1929
  • Chicago State Hospital History
  • History Museum - History of Canadian Medicare: 1914-1929
  • Reddit: AskHistorians - I’m a patient at a psychiatric institution in the 1920s. What types of treatment would potentially be used?
  • Prezi - Mental Asylums in the 1920’s
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - Psychiatry and the General Hospital in an Age of Uncertainty
  • State Records Authority of New South Wales - Asylum Records
  • University of Michigan Health System - A Century of Improving Mental Health Care at Michigan
  • Prezi - Medical Breakthrough in the 1920s
  • Science Museum - Mental Institutions
  • Mail Online - Sent to the Asylum: The Victorian Women locked up Because they were Suffering from Stress, Post Natal Depression and Anxiety
  • South Shore Hospital, South Weymouth; Boston, Massachusetts - The 1920s
  • The Stockton State Mental Asylum from the 1890’s to 1920’s
  • Mississippi State Department of Health - Public Health Nursing 1920-1949
  • University of Rhode Island - Syphilis from 1880 to 1920: A Public Health Nightmare and the First Challenge to Medical Ethics
  • Duke University Libraries - Timeline: Medicine and Madison Avenue 1920s
  • PBS - A Social History Of America’s Most Popular Drugs
  • North Carolina Encyclopedia - Headache Powders
  • Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine - The 1920s
  • Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC - 1920s
  • BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia - Anaesthesia in the 1920s (PDF)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine - 1920 History Timeline
  • Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand - The Polio Era, 1920s to 1960s
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - Immigration, Ethnicity, and the Pandemic
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - British Maternal Mortality in the 19th and Early 20th Century
  • The History of Midwifery and Childbirth - A Timeline
  • National Institutes of Health - The History of the Pregnancy Test Kit: Timeline
  • Family Planning Association - Contraception: Past, Present and Future Factsheet
  • National Center for Biotechnology Information - The Politics of Birth Control , 1920-1940
  • Museum of Menstruation and Women’s Health - Ad for Hickory Sanitary Napkin Belts, 1920s
  • Duke University Libraries - Feminine Hygiene: 1920s Ads
  • Vintage Beauty and Hygiene Ads of the 1920s
  • Vintage Shaving Ads of the 1920s

Law Enforcement & Crime

  • 1920’s Law and Order: Criminal gangs the Legacy of Prohibition
  • Crime Library - Harlem Gangs from the 1920s and 1930s
  • New Jersey State Police - History in 1920s
  • Trenton Police Museum - 1920-1939
  • Gothamist - 16 Grisliest Crime Scene Photos From 1920s New York
  • Huffingtonpost - Crime Scene Photographs From The 1920s-1960s Give A Glimpse Into America’s Dark Past
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - New York History
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - The FBI and the American Gangster, 1924-1938
  • Anaheim Police Department History: 1920
  • New York State Police - History: 1917 - 1929
  • Los Angeles Police Department - The LAPD in 1900-1925
  • Gothamist - Photo: In 1920s NYC, Police Stopped Traffic For Crossing Cats
  • NPR - Eerily Beautiful Mug Shots From 1920s Australia
  • HiConsumption - Dapper Criminals in 1920s Police Mugshots
  • Palm Beach Daily News - Police Ledgers from 1920s Capture Unvarnished Details of Palm Beach Life
  • University at Albany, The State University of New York - Laws ad Major Events of the 1920s
  • University at Albany, The State University of New York - Organized Crime and Prohibition
  • - The United States Prohibition of Alcohol: 1920-1933
  • Office of the Historian - The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)
  • - Prohibition
  • University of Michigan - Organized Crime: How it Was Changed by Prohibition
  • The Finer Times - Organized Crime in the 1920’s and Prohibition
  • BBC - Was the 1920s a Decade of Organized Crime and Corruption?
  • Encyclopedia of Chicago - Organized Crime in 1920s Chicago
  • - Mafia in the United States
  • Australian National University - Melbourne Crime: From War to Depression, 1919-1929
  • Cato Institute - Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure
  • Prezi - Crime and Punishment in the 1920s
  • Death Penalty Information Center - Part 1: History of the Death Penalty
  • Wikipedia - 1920s Crimes
  • History Today - Hitler and the Law, 1920-1945
  • Crime & Investigation Network - London Gangs
  • The Guardian - Girl Gang’s Grip on London Underworld Revealed
  • Prezi - We So Gangsta’: Canadian Organized Crime in the 1920’s and 1930’s
  • Prezi - Mafia Weapons of the 1920’s
  • The Guardian - Did American Gangsters in the 1920s and 1930s really carry guns in violin cases, or was that characteristic invented by movie script writers?
  • NY Daily Times - As many as 20 boys in Wineville, Calif., die at the hands of sadistic sex manic Gordon Stewart Northcott in the late 1920s
  • Baltimore City Police History - 1920 to 1940
  • Australian Police - Uniforms of the NSW Police 
  • Metropolitan Women Police Association - History of Women Police Officers
  • Ohio State University - Women’s National Committee for Law Enforcement: Temperance & Prohibition
  • National Center for Women & Policy - A History of Women in Policing
  • Reddit: AskHistorians - Was cocaine legal during the 1920s in Germany?
  • Texas State Historical Association - Prostitution
  • Prezi - Prostitution in the 1920’s
  • University of Michigan - Organized Crime: The Status before Prohibition
  • University of Michigan - The Corrupt City
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - FBI Versus the Klan, Part 2
  • PBS - The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s
  • Oklahoma State University - Ku Klux Klan
  • San Diego History Center - Ku Klux Klan 1920-1980
  • University of Washington - Ku Klux Klan in Washington State, 1920s
  • Encyclopedia Virginia: Racial Integrity Laws of the 1920s

At no point would I necessarily label my political convictions as “collectivistic”, as in the opposite of “individualistic”. Randian individualists have a habit of painting the true political spectrum as a rift between the individual and the group, but it’s an oversimplification. Maybe this might make sense in a classless society where free neighbors were trying to strike a balance where the community respects the individual and the individual respects the community. But as it stands now, class divisions – that is, the rift between all-producing laboring classes and parasitic ruling classes – are more important determinants of political shifts. If you are right-wing, you generally favor the established order whereby elite ruling classes arbitrarily own the workplaces and resources and utilities, while the laboring classes sell their capacity to work so they can simply make ends meet; if you are left-wing, you typically favor an overhaul of this order, in effect turning those workplaces and resources and utilities over to common democratic management. While Randian individualists certainly fall into the former rightist camp, you might notice that there’s nothing particularly, well, individual-nourishing about that setup. When the average person lacks ownership stake and input over the things they build and contribute to, and furthermore lacks comfortable livelihood, they fall short of their potential.

With this in mind, the collectivization of the means of production and resources, the goal of the communist project, does not presuppose a suppression of the creative individual. Seeing as self-actualization is a privilege overwhelmingly reserved for those who have sufficient access to resources, I only see an upsurge in plurality following the establishment of a socialist order. What center of ruling class domination will be pumping out cultural hegemony to conform to? What hierarchical market economy will there be to sink or swim in?

Take the famous line from the Manifesto: “The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Actualized individuals create healthy societies. Now swap the two: “The free development of all is the condition for the free development of each.” Common democracy in the social complements individualized autonomy in the personal.

Terry Eagleton takes it a step further: “If human beings are self-realizing creatures, then they need to be at liberty to fulfill their needs and express their powers. But if they are also social animals, living alongside other self-expressive beings, they need to prevent an endless, destructive clash of powers. This, in fact, is one of the most intractable problems of liberal society, in which individuals are supposed to be free, but free among other things to be constantly at one another’s throats. Communism, by contrast, organizes social life so that individuals are able to realize themselves in and through the self-realization of others…In this sense, socialism does not simply reject liberal society, with its passionate commitment to the individual. Instead, it builds on and completes it. In doing so, it shows how some of the contradictions of liberalism, in which your freedom may flourish only at the expense of mine, may be resolved. Only through others can we finally come into our own. This means an enrichment of individual freedom, not a diminishing of it. It is hard to think of a finer ethic. On a personal level, it is known as love.”

The starry-eyed daydreaming kid in me always gets chills whenever I come across descriptions of leftist thought like that. That’s why my main blog is titled “One with the All” – I see political endgame and spiritual truth as a situation where the individual empowers the larger whole and the larger whole empowers the individual. Only a massive overhaul can achieve this, finally giving people direct influence over the institutions they build and contribute to. For the One and the All to achieve actualization, we must abandon class.


Therefore, comrade, you will hold as enemies - loftily, lucidly, consistently - not only sadistic governors and greedy bankers, not only prefects who torture and colonists who flog, not only corrupt, check-licking politicians and subservient judges, but likewise and for the same reason, venomous journalists, goitrous academicians, wreathed in dollars and stupidity, ethnographers who go in for metaphysics, presumptuous Belgian theologians, chattering intellectuals born stinking out of the thigh of Nietzsche, the paternalists, the embracers, the corrupters, the back-slappers, the lovers of exoticism, the dividers, the agrarian sociologists, the hoodwinkers, the hoaxers, the hot-air artists, the humbugs, and in general, all those who, performing their functions in the sordid division of labor for the defense of Western bourgeois society, try in divers ways and by infamous diversions to split up the forces of Progress-even if it means denying the very possibility of Progress - all of them tools of capitalism, all of them, openly or secretly, supporters of plundering colonialism, all of them responsible, all hateful, all slave-traders…

From Discourse on Colonialism by Aimé Césaire


This is a revised version of a previous post of mine. This illustrates the self-reinforcing features of prosperous societies and predatory societies.

It all begins with the prevalence of trust or fear within a community. The lack of fear naturally encourages a communal symbiosis in which members enjoy relatively equal status and utility. Tribalism and the reliance on protection and administrative services (i.e., government) are kept to a minimum.

On the other hand, the lack of trust among community members creates division which precludes engagement and communication. Without verbal exchange, material theft between factions soon follows resulting in a combative and hierarchical culture both internally (e.g., white vs black, capital vs labor, natives vs immigrants, etc.) and externally (imperial conquest). Prolonged conflict exhausts resources, reduces living standards for the masses, but enriches the members who comprise the rent-seeking savior class (e.g., politicians, lawyers, military, police, state bureaucracy, government privateers, union bosses, etc.).

anonymous asked:

I don't understand that gender post you reblogged. how are not all amab people male socialized? what is happening with the ones who aren't? what does that mean?

Amab people receive male socialization, but the degree of it and how it’s internalized are going to vary a lot from person to person. Like, I’m a cis man who has been gnc in certain areas since I was a young kid, and a situation like that applies to a lot of amab cis men. Trans women receive similar socialization, but their internalization of it and navigation through gender makes their experiences qualitatively different from cis men; their subsequent social embodiment of gender then positions them beneath men in the gender hierarchy. I still believe you’re ultimately going to receive socialization and societal benefits/detriments based on how other people perceive you and how you “do gender”, but that says nothing about how it’s all internalized. Either way, abolish gender as the social hierarchy used to justify men’s exploitation of women and the sexual division of labor; build a society where people are free to present how they feel comfortable, liberated from the fabricated expectations and hierarchies of gender.

The same bourgeois mind which praises division of labor in the workshop, life-long annexation of the laborer to a partial operation, and his complete subjection to capital, as being an organization of labor that increases its productiveness – that same bourgeois mind denounces with equal vigor every conscious attempt to socially control and regulate the process of production, as an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights of property, freedom, and unrestricted play for the bent of the individual capitalist. It is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologies of the factory system have nothing more damning to urge against a general organization of the labor of society, than that it would turn all society into one immense factory.
—  Karl Marx, Capital vol. I, ch. XIV
Culture is the general sphere of knowledge, and of representations of lived experience, within a historical society divided into classes; what this amounts to is that culture is the power to generalize, existing apart, as an intellectual division of labor and as the intellectual labor of division. Culture detached itself from the unity of myth-based society, according to Hegel, “when the power to unify disappeared from the life of man, and opposites lost their connection and living interaction, and became autonomous.” In thus gaining its independence, culture was embarked on an imperialistic career of self-enrichment that was at the same time the beginning of the decline of its independence. The history that brought culture’s relative autonomy into being, along with the ideological illusions concerning that autonomy, is also expressed as the history of culture. And the whole triumphant history of culture can be understood as the history of the revelation of culture’s insufficiency, as a march toward culture’s self-abolition. Culture is the locus of the search for lost unity. In the course of this search, culture as a separate sphere is obliged to negate itself.
—  Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, Negation and Consumption in the Cultural Sphere.

anonymous asked:

Do keep in mind that this "socialization" is very different from place to place, and in no way works as a global measurement. What is acceptable/expected of each gender vary from place to place. Even male supremacy isn't the same on a global scale, and needs to be navigated in different manners.

Absolutely. A lot of western standards for gender have been globalized through colonialism and imperialism over the centuries, but you’re absolutely right that what gender roles look like varies across time and place. I think it’s safe to say that the social category of “man” has almost always been placed above the social category “woman” in every patriarchal society that upholds gender, as an ideological reinforcement of the sexual division of labor, but expressions of that have varied.


The Extremely Ancient City of Catalhuyuk, 7,500 - 5,700 BC.

One of the greatest questions to to plague historians is the question of when civilization began.  This is a very complex question, after all, how does one define civilization?  Typically scholars and regular people define civilization as having cities, writing, art, science, religion, industry, agriculture, and a structured society with a division of labor. So when did we as mankind adopt all these things? When did we cease to be hunter gatherers or nomadic herding cultures and become civilized.

Typically, mainstream historians set the date for civilization around 3,000 BC.  This is roughly when complex societies began to sprout up in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China. All that came before is typically titled “pre-history”. However, archaeological anomalies have been discovered which shake the notion that civilization began on that date.  For example, the most recent discovery of a large monolithic religious structure at Gobleki Tepe in Turkey challenges the mainstream theory, especially considering that it is dated to around the 8th-10th millennium BC, thousands of years before the supposed date of civilization.  One site that most intrigues peashooter is Catalhuyuk, also in Turkey.  While not as old as Gobleki Tepe (Catalhuyuk was occupied between 7,500 BC - 5,700 BC), I find it a much grander discovery than Gobleki.  Whereas Gobleki was a religious site for nomadic peoples (at least the current theory goes), Catalhuyuk is a large city that once was host to a very complex and civilized society.

Catalhuyuk was originally discovered in 1958 by the archaeologist James Mellaart.  Unfortunately Mellaart was accused of illegal antiquities smuggling and thus banned from Turkey, so earnest excavations of the site didn’t begin until 1993.  What was found amazed archaeologists and historians, as they discovered a large, ancient city far older than any other site of its type in the world.  Founded around 7,500 BC, at its height Catalhuyuk boasted a population of 10,000, and averaged a population around 5,000 - 7,000. The city was abandoned around 5,700 BC for reasons that are unknown. Consisting of a several buildings constructed from mud brick with plaster interiors, there were no city streets or foot paths, rather the buildings are constructed together into one large honeycomb-like mega building.  Life was very communal, as people would have needed to walk through various rooms, domiciles, and buildings to travel through the city.  Some of the buildings have been identified as religious centers, workshops, storage spaces, and graneries. Life in Catalhuyuk was not bad, in fact recreations and restorations of Catalhuyuk show that its people were not cave men but very civilized people who lived in a complex society.  I myself wouldn’t mind living in a cozy apartment that looked like this…

Furthermore, Catalhuyuk had most of the things that we would define as being civilized.  Evidence shows that Catalhuyuk was a mixed agrarian, pastoral (herding), and hunter gatherer society as granaries have been identified as well as hunting tools and art depicting hunting. Thus, the common diet was a well balanced diet that would have consisted of grain based foods, as well as meat and dairy.  Evidence also shows that fruit, peas, and nuts were common. Numerous paintings, murals, sculptures, pottery and pieces of jewelry demonstrate that the city’s people had a complex artistic culture. Tools found on the site show that they had more advanced technology than most nomadic societies. Amazingly, flint originating from Syria and shells from the Mediterranean demonstrate that they had merchants with outside trade contacts.  Most importantly the people of Catalhuyuk were not merely farmers, herders, and hunters, but to sustain such a culture there were also a number of craftsmen, artisans, builders, artists, merchants, religious professionals, and perhaps clerical and government officials.  

One thing Catalhuyuk did not have that most other so called civilizations have is a system of writing.  Thus, knowledge of Catalhuyuk is very limited as they kept no records and obviously nothing of their oral tradition survives.  However, peashooter would definitely qualify Catalhuyuk as a shining example of early civilization. What is most intriguing is the thought that surely Catalhuyuk, and a couple of other sites, could not have been the only sites to have existed during that period.  Surely there were other similar cultures and civilizations around the world at the time. It would seem ridiculous, if not outright preposterous to assume that Catalhuyuk was a lone city in a world populated by Neolithic cave dudes