christo-bolshevik - Tumblr blog

[christo-bolshevik]

[christo-bolshevik]

[christo-bolshevik]

[christo-bolshevik]

Why must power inherently be apart of being a man and lack of power inherently be part of being a women? Alot of the confusion discussed in this post could be easily dealt with if you didn't assume that, which would be quite easy, because gender is not a fixed eternal category; there is no natural law saying men must have power and women must be disempowered. This social formation could easily be reversed, and there have been societies where it has been reversed, or even where it was always the opposite of the relations that exist today.

A fundamental part of transandrophobia is the fact that its extremely difficult to fit trans men into the categories we have.

We have the categories of "man" and "woman", with men being dominant, in control, and powerful, and women not. These categories have historically been exclusive to cis people, but now we have transfeminism. Trans women are very clearly not a dominant, in control, powerful group in society, and they are women, so its very easy to fit them in to the existing framework. Men are still in power and women still aren't, its just that "women" now includes both women and the cooler women.

But trans men are harder to fit in. In trans-accepting feminism, trans men are accepted as men. But trans men are not a group that is dominant, in control, and powerful in society. We don't have trans men making laws, or being popular newscaster who can sway public opinion. Stories are not written with the "trans male gaze", as trans men are not expected to be the viewer. Trans men are not seen by society at large as especially trustworthy, likable, people that should be listened to.

So, to keep that framework intact, you either have to say that trans men are women and ignore their identity, or you have to say that trans men are men and therefore in power. Neither of these answers are good for trans men, and neither accurately describe trans men's place in society. Because while trans men are affected by misogyny, trans men have experiences of gender and sexual oppression that cis women don't. And nonbinary people, too, are shafted here; nonbinary people aren't a dominant group, but many are not women and many were not assigned female at birth. What do you do with that? (Well, just start lumping them with women, it seems).

This is why I feel the thing we need is a proper restructuring of how we view gendered oppression. We are trying to operate trans existence through cis technology. Right now, in trans-affirming feminism, it seems that if you experience some sort of gendered oppression, you are seen as a de facto woman until you can't be. Cissexism and binarism is still dominating our perspectives, even when we are "trans-affirming", because we are still unwilling to change our framework to adjust for trans experiences.

[christo-bolshevik]

The Bonapartist State

“Raising itself politically above the classes, Bonapartism, like its predecessor Caesarism, for that matter, represents in the social sense, always and at all epochs, the government of the strongest and firmest part of the exploiters; consequently, present-day Bonapartism can be nothing else than the government of finance capital which directs, inspires and corrupts the summits of the bureaucracy, the police, the officers’ caste, and the press."

Leon Trotsky, "Bonapartism and Fascism

[christo-bolshevik]

genuinely cannot comprehend how democrats are gonna convince the youth to vote for them again in november after they literally let the police beat the shit outta them for protesting against genocide

[christo-bolshevik]

marxism-leninism-maoism?

"im a lesbian because i hate men/want to never be around men ever again" is shit logic because:

genderfluid lesbians exist

bigender lesbians exist

non binary lesbians exist

bi/pan/poly/omnisexual lesbians & their partners exist

multigender/polygender lesbians exist

genderqueer lesbians exist

two-spirit lesbians

demiboy & demigender lesbians exist

lesboys exist

guydykes exist

butches & studs who are/are partially men exist

ftm, transmasc & trans man lesbians exist

a lot of masc, male and man identifying lesbians exist.

men are not inherently evil or dangerous.

lesbians who are men exist. you are alienating other lesbians when you say things like this. you are enabling people in chasing out partially or wholly male identifying people who rightfully belong there from lesbian spaces. destroy this logic once and for all, it's violent, hateful, and dangerous.

[christo-bolshevik]

lol imperial pederast murderers getting what they deserve

[SOURCE]

[christo-bolshevik]

Oxalá!!

[christo-bolshevik]

lol the fact that this is the only liberal talking point is so telling. They are only able to justify their incompetence and cruelty by saying “well at least we are slightly less incompetent and cruel than the other guy!”

Y’all are really willing to let the biggest piece of shit racists in this country win AGAIN because a sitting US president isn’t okay with vandalism. 2016 didn’t teach y’all a damn thing did it?

[christo-bolshevik]

You seem to not know much about American history. The Black Church played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement in this country, which granted black Americans the same rights as white Americans. The movement to abolish slavery in this country was also firmly grounded in Christian progressive ideas about equality and the rights of man. You can that these are bourgeois ideas fine, but they were revolutionary at the time. It isn’t anti Marxist to recognize that, and it isn’t anti Marxist to say that religion has played a unique and more often than not progressive role in American history. In fact refusing to look at the concrete development of American, you are being anti Marxist. I’m not gonna respond to the wife beating, pedophile comments because they are retarded and without substance, but you also seem to be retarded and without substance, so that doesn’t surprise me.

And yes, the Bolsheviks were against religion. I think that for their time this was correct, as the Russian church and most religion in general was a tool of state violence. But generalizing that to all situations everywhere is stupid and anti Marxist, and is just bad history in general.

Kindly fuck off and break a stick off in your ass.

The medieval Saint Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine, shortly before it was demolished by the Soviets in 1935. X

[christo-bolshevik]

Soviet sailors in London visiting the grave of Karl Marx on his birthday, 5th May 1956.

[christo-bolshevik]

lol comparing religion to the fucking confederate states of America is a wild false equivalence. And sorry I’m not in the habit of taking concepts and mechanically applying them to literally everything. The role of religion in the Tsarist Empire is totally different from the role of religion in 21st century America. Religion has had a huge impact of progressive social movements in America, from the movement to abolish slavery, the anti war movement and the civil rights movement. Religion plays a totally different role in the balance of forces today than it used to, and a good Marxist would recognize that instead of just blindly wrenching principles from a totally different time and applying them in totally foreign conditions. In other words, you’re a dogmatic moron.

The medieval Saint Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine, shortly before it was demolished by the Soviets in 1935. X

[christo-bolshevik]

Why do you want to demolish historically important sites lmao. Least deranged Stalinist

The medieval Saint Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine, shortly before it was demolished by the Soviets in 1935. X

[christo-bolshevik]

[christo-bolshevik]

The Unity of Subject and Object

“Idealistic philosophy’s point of departure–the ‘I’ as the fundamental philosophical principle–is totally erroneous. It is not the ‘I’ that must be the starting point of genuine philosophy, but the ‘I’ and the ‘you.’ It is such a point of departure that makes it possible to arrive at a proper understanding of the relation between thinking and being, between the subject and the object. I am ‘I’ to myself, and at the same time I am ‘you’ to others. The ‘I’ is the subject, and at the same time the object. It must be noted at the same time that I am not the abstract being with which idealistic philosophy operates. I am an actual being; my body belongs to my essence; moreover, my body, as a whole, is my I, my genuine essence. It is not an abstract being that thinks, but this actual being, this body… an actual and material being proves to be the subject; and thinking, the predicate. Herein lies the only possible solution of the contradiction between thinking and being, a contradiction that idealism so vainly sought to resolve. None of the elements in the contradiction is removed; both are preserved, revealing their unity.”

-Georgi Plekhanov, Fundamental Problems of Marxism

[christo-bolshevik]

“Umm it will actually be very difficult for universities to divest from israel and arms manufacturers without tuition skyrocketing 🤓☝🏼” why is the financial stability of a college (and the economy at large, especially in the us) so reliant on what amounts to war profiteering to begin with? Why is that an inevitability that we’re supposed to accept?