CONT....

Since I’ve noticed that many of you believe in “gender abolitionism”, why do you think gender should be abolished and what do you think about identity politics in general?

I fully support gender abolitionism because gender is socially constructed and it is a product of the environment. It is a label and a language we humans use to describe biological bodies and identify patterns in behavior which are in turn also a product of the environment. Even sex is socially constructed; The notion of two biological sexes was formulated during the 18th century and has been perpetuated as an objective truth by empiricists even though there is a variety of sexual differences in human bodies that go beyond just the penis and vagina. E.g. Intersex people.

What exactly is a female or a male? A man or a woman? There are people born with both sex organs, some men have very high levels of estrogen, some women have beards, etc. So what truly constitutes male or female, man or woman? I like Judith Butler's approach to this; Judith Butler refers to gender as, “the apparatus by which the production and normalization of masculine and feminine take place along with the interstitial forms of hormonal, chromosomal, psychic, and performative that gender assumes.” Her position is that biological sex is as much a socially constructed category as gender. She doesn't deny that there is such a thing as physical bodies which may or may not look like one another, but she argues that our understanding of sex as being either male or female is a product of the social environment and what is attributed to them through discourse. This begins with the assignment of sex by the doctor at birth, which is fundamentally what ends up making one a "boy" or a "girl". Humans just decided to call these specific humans with certain characteristics 'male' and this other group with another set of common characteristics 'female'. What do you think biological sex is? Here's a non-exhaustive list of possibilities: * You are male (female) if you have the appropriate gonads.

• You are female (male) if your body produces the appropriate hormones.

• You are male (female) if your body produces the appropriate gametes.

• You are female (male) if your body is capable of fulfilling the appropriate reproductive functions.

• You are male (female) if you have the appropriate chromosomal set.

If there is no real cohesiveness in the concept of gender and no way of telling what exactly is a man or a woman then why force it upon people and why even acknowledge it?

I do not support identity politics for various reasons:

• Because I divorces identities such as woman, queer, trans, black, Latino, etc. form their historical context and reifies them, thus it is a form of idealism.

• More often than not, most forms of idetitarianism such as intersectionality ignore the possibility that someone from an oppressed demographic can also be an oppressor.

• It perpetuates the idea of “Oppression Aristocracy”. E.g. X race is far more oppressed than Z race; X sexuality is more frowned upon than Z sexuality. This type of line of thinking is what gave rise to the reactionary ideology of Third Worldism and the idea that nationalism is OK as long as it comes from an oppressed nation. That’s why you have the tanks supporting Ba’athism even though it’s pretty much just Arab national socialism.

• Identities won’t even matter under communism. In a fully egalitarian society, forces of oppression won’t exist and therefore these “identities” won’t be acknowledged. These identities are just discursive, social, and linguistic symbols perpetuated throughout history for political and sometimes even traditionalist reasons. Only when we, the proletariat move beyond these oppressive and divisive labels that locate us in a matrix of power which constitutes us as such will we be truly free to be our true authentic selves. Just creating more categories such as genderqueer, triracial, demisexual, etc. will just put us inside smaller boxes. There is no essential self, only humans that are products of material conditions. Identity politics are as toxic for the worker’s movement as activism.

Here are 2 pretty good critiques on identity politics:

https://libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

https://libcom.org/library/gender-nihilism-anti-manifesto

Should a revolution be violent? I ask this because some people tend to associate violence with the so called “tankies” so I’m curious.

Yes, absolutely. All revolutions are violent. Marx once said during a speech in 1872: "We are aware of the importance that must be accorded to the institutions, customs, and traditions of different countries; and we do not deny that there are countries like America, England (and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland) where the workers can achieve their aims by peaceful means. However true that may be, we ought also to recognise that, in most of the countries on the continent, it is force that must be the lever of our revolutions; it is to force that it will be necessary to appeal for a time in order to establish the reign of labour".

Marx also once said:

"We must make clear to the governments: we know that you are the armed power that is directed against the proletariat; we will proceed against you by peaceful means where that is possible and with arms when it is necessary."

Finally from Marx again:

“No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.

“The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination,” he went on to say, “it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.”

If you do not use violence, the ruling class won’t hesitate to use I against you. Also, just so you know, left communism =/= Pacifism. We believe in a fully armed mass strike and workplace occupation. The police and certain varieties of criminals will not like this. A good defense is a good offense. When the French overthrew feudalism and beheaded Marie Antoinette via guillotine, I’m pretty sure they didn’t do it because they felt edgy. Neither were the black slaves that killed their owners.

What do you think about anarchism?

I do like and respect many of their stances and anarchists also share their opposition against Stalinism and totalitarianism with left coms. I’m also a fan of Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin. The only thing I dislike about most anarchists is their idealism and the fact that most of them fall into the anti-fa and anti-capitalist tendency. Still, when a revolution happens, I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt and am willing to collaborate with them to a certain extent. Better them than the tanks.