im tagging myself as radical theatre that sounds fire

getting to know your neighbors is not organizing

The real gold is in the comments btw

lowkey its just normal s*** people already should be doing

Gotta be reminded of the normal s*** in this day and age

Bro I just saw u at the last DSA meeting we had stop pretending like u didnt have a great time

the infographic on the right is pretty funny when you actually read the points. "stitch and b****"

already said it damn

i hadn’t considered that the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is just the inverse of the capitalist system we currently live under, the ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’

the new watch the throne just dropped

heres how you can turn fans of large corporations into stalinists! in this essay,

lmao

both organizations will forget they did this next week and the NDP will go back to attacking Trudeau's immigration policies from the right and the DSA will go back to handing out s***ty vegan food

marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/mim-theory/mim-2-3.pdf

MIM Theory 2-3 on maoism and feminism. fascinating stuff.

this is multiple separate essays compiled together right? scanned certain chapters/essays and views seem inconsistent between them, some points made seem more true (or just well thought out/cited) than others

yeah, thats how MIM compiled all their books. I agree it's uneven but there's also not much scholarship done on some of these concepts (such as the "gender aristocracy").

(not argumentative, just some thoughts)

I skimmed certain parts and I think the comments made about friedan are overly critical. it comes up several times throughout multiple essays to varying degrees. even in the review of the work, the writer notes that she was "90% correct". friedan had an explicitly marxist background, so the idea her writing didn't take those ideas into account was double-edged.
it's undeniable much of her work concerned itself with middle class white feminism, but that was more the point, no? the feminine mystique wasn't aimed at being holistically revolutionary, it was aimed at informing a social caste of radical-leaning ideas that otherwise wouldn't have penetrated their social sphere. while I may get the critique that this is "bad" in the sense of being like the trotsky of feminism rather than explicitly revolutionary, I do think friedan has a place from at least an educational standpoint relevant to the time. they even say this themselves, hence why they can't disagree with her.
the comments about it not being intersectional enough are probably valid to a degree (i get it's a maoist theory book so its reflective of certain ideas pre-emptively) but imo its debatable within the sphere of women's issues - they don't seem to point out Dworkin's similarities here despite agreeing with her as a contrasting figure.

lol

lenin actually goes over this distortion later in the book, comparing the similarities and differences of the two

hero

this is the future of political discourse