I found that you don’t provide concrete evidence at all when you speak. The basis of your arguments is often just your own words like “idealists say” or “some comrades like to criticize patriarchy in isolation,” without presenting facts, reasoning, or actual specific examples and evidence, engaging in loud and vigorous debate.
13 Likes
ACG作品的内容也从来都不是天生的，也不是从天而降、突然出现的东西，它是由人类创造出来的，也反映着一定的阶级立场。从来没有超阶级的东西。ACG也是如此。它为什么被认为是反动的？是因为它被制造出来就是用来宣扬个人英雄主义和色情思想的，所谓的核心“燃え”“萌え”。毛主席在评价文学艺术作品时，就指出了政治和艺术、内容和形式是统一的。我们从来没有这样评价过巴以问题，你的比喻是抽象的，而且不符合事实的。
11 Likes
Men who can say such things are usually incels, giant babies, parasitic bugs. Redhusky also eats his mom’s cooking and is cared for by his mom, isn’t he?
10 Likes
Who are you referring to here? Additionally, there is an explanation in the forum about “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” which comes from the forum reading group’s discussion, as well as the latest edition of the “Ideological Struggle” guide, which elaborates on how male oppression of women originated in the late primitive society, as private property was continuously produced and developed, ultimately causing the collapse of primitive society.
What you describe as mutual equality and respect remains abstract. In fact, the bourgeoisie does not oppose equality. For example, the bourgeoisie likes to talk about how labor contracts are signed on the basis of equal voluntariness and mutual consultation, and capitalists also like to say that this is a two-way choice process. However, this kind of equality and respect conveniently ignores an important fact: that workers cannot survive without selling their labor power, meaning that the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is inherently unequal, masked by superficial equality. The relationship between men and women in marriage is the same. Moreover, Engels, in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” uses historical logic and history itself to explain how monogamous family structures emerged with the rise of private property. That is, the so-called equality within the family already presupposes a major premise—the monogamous small family under a private property society, which itself is based on the fact that women’s domestic labor is not recognized as social labor and must depend economically on men. This economic inequality inevitably leads to political inequality.
Your statement is still detached from reality, because in patriarchal society, only men’s labor is fully recognized by society, while domestic labor performed by women is not acknowledged. Moreover, the most important point is that inheritance of private property is held by the eldest son, and women cannot inherit property. Therefore, from the perspective of the bride’s family, girls are raised and sold into the husband’s household as domestic slaves. The saying “a daughter who marries out is like water spilled” reflects this reality, and the economic basis of bride price is exactly that. Your claim about consumerist traps is completely fabricated without any factual basis.
Your view here is a typical reformist illusion that stands arrogantly from a male supremacist perspective, granting women superficial improvements. As previously mentioned, the root of gender inequality lies in the fact that women’s domestic labor is not socially recognized, which leads to inequality within family relationships. Therefore, the key is to socialize domestic labor, which necessarily requires the abolition of private property through communist revolution. Women’s domestic labor primarily serves to support the inheritance of private property by the male heir; only by abolishing the social system that continually produces private property can women be truly liberated. Your proposal of “more work for more pay” in household labor is a reformist policy that does not challenge private or patriarchal systems, attempting to achieve “equality” under the condition of private small families. In reality, many men manipulate the narrative by claiming they will handle household chores and childcare after marriage to deceive women.
13 Likes
The history of patriarchy is much longer than you imagine. As early as primitive society, due to the development of productive forces and the refinement of division of labor, the basic economic unit—the family—became smaller. After the emergence of the conjugal family, patriarchy already appeared because some of women’s labor inevitably became household chores, and since this labor was for the small family, it was not recognized by society. With the appearance of monogamous families, women’s domestic labor was entirely confined to the small family, which further diminished their status. This is the economic reason you mention for the emergence of patriarchy—namely, that private property led to the rise of patriarchy.
Moreover, under capitalism, women not only have to work but also do household chores, clearly bearing more burdens and contributing more labor. It is precisely because they undertake domestic work and due to physiological reasons that women find it difficult to be economically independent. In the eyes of capitalists, women doing household chores and caring for children delays their work time, and physiological factors such as menstruation and pregnancy make it hard to exploit more surplus value. Therefore, capitalists often rarely hire female workers; even when they do, women’s wages are usually lower than men’s, and when women get married or pregnant, they are often dismissed. For all these reasons, women find it difficult to be economically independent in capitalist society.
And you say that men are raising “giant infants,” but in fact, women at home are used as their husbands’ sexual tools, household slaves, and reproductive tools. The so-called bride price is just the cost paid by the buyer for a living property. Ask yourself, a private owner who spends a lot of money to buy an item, wouldn’t they try every means to oppress and use that property? The bride price is proof of women’s enslavement, and the more bride price paid, the deeper their enslavement. Do slaves feel happy or gain benefits because they were sold at a high price? Moreover, bride price is never given to women but to their families as compensation for raising their daughters. Isn’t it still the women’s father who holds authority in the family? In short, bride price is merely proof of a patriarchal family leader engaging in dirty transactions with another patriarchal family leader. Your so-called opposition to bride price from a male perspective is not only a complete male chauvinist stance but also reflects your desire to possess a woman without paying any cost.
10 Likes
I’m sorry to tell you that Engels was not a big capitalist. And even more regrettable is that none of those revisionist factions are anything but wealthy bourgeoisie capitalists. You talk about class and Marxism verbally, but in reality, you don’t use class analysis methods to analyze people at all.
7 Likes
So, according to that, cartoons like “My Good Friend Sasa” and “Bear Paradise” are also considered anime in the broad sense. Are they inherently bad too? Comrade, don’t be too dogmatic.
Calm down first, carefully review what we said, and then look at the reading materials we recommended to you. After you review, then speak; this way, your reasoning will be more justified. Your emotional outbursts here not only hinder communication but also are not conducive to correcting your mistakes.
Since you believe that bride price is something related to feudal parents’ human trafficking, then answer me: besides possibly ending up in the hands of feudal parents, who else might modern bride price go to? And did you seriously read what I said? Comrade?
Your so-called “ACG and games, in essence, are a form of art” is nothing more than ignoring content to discuss form, engaging in reckless sophistry. All forms have content; in a class society, they all reflect certain content. What you call the “two-dimensional” world expressed through animation, comics, and games is the reactionary thought of the bourgeoisie, and it is also an extremely blatant fascist ideology involving violence, pornography, and other reactions. These reactionary works of the “two-dimensional” world are without exception based on bourgeois aesthetic standards that insult women, portraying women as detached from labor, physically weak, mentally foolish, and as submissive sex tools and household slaves. The so-called “beauty” of the two-dimensional world is nothing but promoting the pursuit of sexual stimulation, where cruelty towards women for sexual excitement is considered beautiful; the so-called “love” in the two-dimensional world is just advocating greed and shamelessly treating women as commodities—this is love. What you call “ACG” is merely a specific artistic form used to depict these reactionary contents, not just general animation, comics, or games. Marxists do not oppose all animation, comics, and games; even within the treasure trove of socialist culture, there are excellent revolutionary animations and comics. However, what Marxists firmly oppose is your kind of evil attempt to promote vulgar, dirty, and disgusting bourgeois reactionary two-dimensional content under the guise of animation, comics, and games!
8 Likes
Thank you, I am a proponent of non-marriage.
I don’t date, only have daily interactions with women, and I don’t get married. How am I planning to possess women without compensation?
Comrade, your hat is really too big for me.
So, comrades, are you advocating for cultural nihilism? Everything besides revolutionary culture is heresy? After all, I see that you even criticize “Plants vs. Zombies” as a “rightist game.” I’ve played for half my life, and this is the first time I’ve heard of it.
Revolutionary violence is also violence and often appears in games. Does socialism prohibit love? Do you think socialism is Puritan-style asceticism?
Isn’t he from the bourgeoisie? You also believe that ACG culture was created by the bourgeoisie.
What exactly do you mean by this so-called heresy? All culture is class-based; simply put, revolutionary culture is the advanced culture of the proletariat. And besides revolutionary proletarian culture, isn’t it just decadent and backward bourgeois culture? Could there possibly be a third kind of culture that is neither revolutionary nor non-revolutionary, transcending class nature?
11 Likes
Your way of arguing against others’ opinions is simply shouting, “Your point is too outrageous, I’ve never heard of such a thing before.”
6 Likes
“We must respect our own history and never sever it. But this respect is to give history a certain scientific status, to respect the dialectical development of history, not to praise antiquity or deny the present, nor to praise any feudal toxins.” — Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy”
5 Likes
It doesn’t matter what “ideology” you are, frankly, your reactionary views have nothing to do with whether you get married or not. You can’t hide your reactionary views by claiming you don’t date or marry. Moreover, after watching so much anime and manga, don’t you have a sense of what’s in your heart? I suggest you look in the mirror first and think about how many anime women you like before speaking.
10 Likes