North Korea carries out public executions on river banks and at school grounds and marketplaces for charges such as stealing copper from factory machines, distributing media from South Korea and prostitution, a report issued on Wednesday said.
and queerfeminist theory is not synonymous with being liberal, as for instance also (radical) communist/marxist/anarchist variants of that exist.
I agree that materialist analysis is necessary, but some parts of non-liberal/radical queerfeminism contain materialist analysis?
Proletarian feminism is the way to go, and queer liberation can not come through ‘queerfeminism’ but instead through a workers’ revolution with the right programme.
I disagree that workers revolution leads necessarily to queer liberation. For that to happen you need to include analyse for instance power structures and similar stuff. And this is part of the radical variants. So for instance: worker revolution can also lead to a society in which male workers decide everything and have much power.
A workers’ revolution will not succeed in liberating the working class and building a classless society anyway if it can’t even identify and fight capitalist division strategies in their own lines. Any communist party that’s successful necessarily unites the entire proletariat, and if they don’t, they’re not successful (for long). Of course a communist party needs to analyse everything correctly, and that includes things like queer issues, but that applies to all topics including others like national liberation or the women’s question. You don’t need a specific queerfeminist communist party as opposed to a normal communist party in order to solve LGBTQ issues. A good communist party has a correct program.
Queerfeminism itself is a very specific ideology that is decidedly liberal and idealistic. It’s like Marxism a certain school of thought, not a general set of values. Queer liberation plus feminism does not equal queerfeminism. It’s a term that means a specific ideology spearheaded among others by Judith Butler.
and queerfeminist theory is not synonymous with being liberal, as for instance also (radical) communist/marxist/anarchist variants of that exist.
I agree that materialist analysis is necessary, but some parts of non-liberal/radical queerfeminism contain materialist analysis?
I disagree that workers revolution leads necessarily to queer liberation. For that to happen you need to include analyse for instance power structures and similar stuff. And this is part of the radical variants. So for instance: worker revolution can also lead to a society in which male workers decide everything and have much power.
A workers’ revolution will not succeed in liberating the working class and building a classless society anyway if it can’t even identify and fight capitalist division strategies in their own lines. Any communist party that’s successful necessarily unites the entire proletariat, and if they don’t, they’re not successful (for long). Of course a communist party needs to analyse everything correctly, and that includes things like queer issues, but that applies to all topics including others like national liberation or the women’s question. You don’t need a specific queerfeminist communist party as opposed to a normal communist party in order to solve LGBTQ issues. A good communist party has a correct program.
Queerfeminism itself is a very specific ideology that is decidedly liberal and idealistic. It’s like Marxism a certain school of thought, not a general set of values. Queer liberation plus feminism does not equal queerfeminism. It’s a term that means a specific ideology spearheaded among others by Judith Butler.