Removed by mod
Doubles the workforceRemoves the artificial societal limit that arbitrarily cuts the workforce in halfFTFY
Tad rude to refer to children as “artificial limitations”
You can raise children while both parents are working. Billions of families do it every day. Especially if you also get rid of the notion that raising children is mostly a mother’s job while the father is free to drink beer and watch TV after work.
Removing gender roles in order to more equitably distribute the workload is progressive. You can remove morality from that equation and it still works, ergo it is absolutely something we should support and there are no reasons to perpetuate backwards gender roles.
to perpetuate backwards gender roles
I never even suggested that. Where did you get that from? All I’m saying is, people in power aren’t your friends.
Although is it a good thing that me and my wife work like crazy to keep our family going? Is this really what life is about? I’d love to be stay at home dad, yet I can’t
People in power are not necessarily your enemies either, by virtue of being “in power.” Administration is a necessity in maintaining a large and complex society with intricate production methods and staggering scales of logistics. There will always be a need for administration, of some sort.
The fact that you and your wife work incredibly hard for your family is a byproduct of a highly unequitable distribution of the products of labor. Making labor equitable and more socialized as production gets more complex increases the output and minimizes the number of over or underworked people. We can move to universal 4 day work weeks or even 3 day eventually, by making labor more equitable and socializing the outputs of labor.
That’s why arguing for gender roles, ie a portion of society to perform unpaid domestic labor, is the wrong way to view labor. Domestic labor should be paid labor from the social fund, and childcare should be free at point of service so that this burden of labor is more equitably spread.
Both of these things are good.
Maybe a bad choice of words on my part, maybe I should write “not because it’s right, but because it doubles the workforce”
Although whether “double the workforce” is good or bad, I’d keep that for a discussion, see my other comment for more info: https://lemmy.world/comment/16185467
Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing. While their motivations are cynical, those leaders are doing good.
…or are you trying to imply that keeping women out of the traditional work force (by only allowing them to work unpaid in the home in domestic servitude, labor that capital does not value) increases the value of male labor through scarcity, which would be preferred?
Sorry that second question kind of reads as an attack. A shitty coworker of mine said that to me unironically and tried to play it off as a joke when I pushed back.
It would be nice if one salary, no matter the gender of the breadwinner, could sustain a family.
We shouldn’t have to work to sustain a family, this idea is archaic.
I think this inherently accepts the narrative that the work women were doing before had no or little value.
That care and emotional labour should not fall solely on women and we should all have the opportunity to partake in meaningful work but we shouldn’t accept having to accept less time for care (and leisure) on some trumped up definition of what’s productive/economic or not.
As labor is further socialized (basically centralizing and then running itself without capitalist intervention) you end up having labor done by men and women and women still being responsible for more domestic duties which are labor but not considered labor(because those being done for free subsidizes capitalist profit) the solution though isn’t to keep women in the household, it is to do socialism, where domestic labor can be socialized (it isn’t under capitalism because why would you socialize labor you’re already getting for free?)
Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing.
Women not being forced to do the reproductive labour in the family? Good.
Families being coerced into having two incomes to make ends meet, meaning they don’t get as much time with their children as they like? Bad.
Sorry for late response and I see the comment is now deleted by a mod but whatever (well we’re on .ml after all).
What I was trying to point out, was the “cynical” part of it. That people in power often don’t do it because they want to empower women or help people, more often than not it’s just that it brings more people into their “meat grinder” - regardless of the regime. In case of capitalism it’s obvious but it doesn’t need to be money necessarily; in the case of Stalin - pardon me if I don’t believe that he did it for “supporting women rights and making the world a better place ✌️”, he did it for the raw economic power to compete with US during cold war and so his own country wouldn’t collapse because of his stupid actions.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate. I deliberately didn’t want to say anything in that area, I’m just saying that the motivation of people in power is cynical, not saying if result is good or bad.
But if you’d want my personal stance - I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t. Even though my country sort of supports it, my pay would cut dramatically and we as a family wouldn’t be able to survive.
But honestly thank you for asking. It’s very refreshing to meet a person who asks and tries to understand the motivation of the commenter rather than jumping right to the conclusion (as almost every other response here)
I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t.
Being a stay at home dad is work. Raising children is necessary work that capitalism requires, because it requires laborers. We have engineered a system in which this work is uncompensated, and if you gender this work, it causes gendered oppression.
I will also point out that in America we have decided that unless you have a “job”, society has decided that you pretty much don’t deserve health care. Anyone who chooses a life of domestic labor in America puts themselves in a position where they are financially dependent on their spouse and their spouse’s employment status. It doesn’t have to be this way. We have forged these chains.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate.
If we had more workers, it could be that we wouldn’t need those workers to work as long. Earlier retirement, shorter work weeks, whatever. The issue is not the size of the work force, the issue is what is chosen to be done with it.
deleted by creator
Way to turn the communist acheivement of women’s empowerment into something negative.
I literally said it’s a positive thing, just that motivation of people in power is cynical. Also I didn’t mention communism, I meant it in general regardless of regime
If like every bog-standard anticommunist, you’re going to impute cynical motives on every objectively good thing communists do, we’re not going to take you seriously.
Yeah, and no fault divorce keeps the workforce happier and reduces domestic violence (meaning less injured and killed workers), abortion on demand makes it easier for people to continue working, and socializing former domestic labor improves the efficiency of that work and frees up labor for leisure or other labor, but those things are still good and part of the socialist feminist project.
But at what cost?!
Lots of unnessessary deaths and emprisonment
How do you think unnecessary deaths and imprisonment in the Soviet Union were related to its egalitarian approach to education?
Removed by mod
…you actually believe the USSR was executing… someone… if a particular woman didn’t get a science degree?
These are liberals we’re talking about. They believe all manner of anti-communist nonsense.
Libs think 1984 is a non fiction book and Stalin had people killed unless they exposed their belly and peed themselves in front of him
Me when my country still has lynchings of black and brown people, had horrific racial discrimination during the worst of the USSRs excesses, has the highest per capita incarceration rate of overwhelmingly black and indigenous people, is responsible in part for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis, put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 just in case they were spies, genocided their native population and still effectively operates apartheid for the remaining natives, supports the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, locked up and tortured MENA people without trial post 9/11 in an offshore torture camp, ran black sites all across Iraq and Afghanistan doing more torture of brown people and on and on and on and on and on and on…
Oh come on. You already know what they are going to say to all of this.
Hint: it is a pentasyllable.
Oooh ooh I know this one!
spoiler
WHATABOUTISM
(HURR DURR)
Mysagony: the Silant Killar
Removed by mod
That’s not what the science says btw. If you go to Russia and ask old people about how they feel about the USSR, they are significantly more likely to have favourable views of the USSR than young people who didn’t experience it. If you are interested, you can also look at Generational and Geographic Effects on Collective Memory of the USSR.
Old people in Russia will not remember the Stalin era, but the Khrushchev era (the post-gulag era, famous for de-stalinization) and the Brezhnev era. Old people also tend to romatisize their youth. And romatisizing the Soviet Union is mixed with ethno-nationalism in current days Russia.
I consider myself a socialist, but stalinism is dog-shit.
The world owes Stalin and the people of the USSR a debt that can never be repaid for being the only country to try to stop Nazi Germany before the war and the country which bore the brunt of the casualties and hardship.
Any “socialist” who shit talks them is suspicious as fuck in my book, chauvinist at the very best and probably a snitch.
Khrushchev was an opportunist piece of shit and the world would have been better if he had been kicked out of the party.
The soviets saved the world, but Stalin was a monster ntl.
Oh yes. The only country. the people who stood up and fought for their independence from that murderous shit hole just were brain washed by all those western capitalist comforts and luxuries. Ups sorry no they were even worse off with the capitalists because they really were enslaved and unhappy and taken advantage of.
but alas at least they chose. Socialists chose for you. If you don’t like the choice fuck off to the gulag.
You’re joking, right? Never heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Funny fact: all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France? The one that was signed after Stalin’s pleas for an alliance against Hitler’s Germany fell on deaf ears because Western powers were still dreaming that Germany would attack the USSR first and succeed where they’d failed immediately after the 1917 revolution? That one?
Historically illiterate westerners read a single fucking line and memorize it and think that’s an earth-shattering gotcha like we haven’t seen your cookie cutter shit a hundred times. Serious socialists who actually read history can contextualize history, and I’ll repeat it: fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it’s barely notch above outright holocaust denial.
all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
Back up your claims with a serious source. I’m sure such a comically extraordinary claim will have hard evidence behind it and not just a vibe.
A user just moved the goalpost to the time when the U.S.S.R. traded some raw materials in exchange for firearms and other machinery (which it later used to help defeat the Axis). One can imagine another counterarguing that this credit deal hardly enabled the Third Reich’s bellicism; that, if anything, it likely only lead to the Axis’s defeat as it allowed the Soviets to prepare for the armed conflict. Ask yourself if that sounds identical to the liberal bourgeoisie’s appeasement.
The Third Reich’s trade with the Kingdom of Romania between January and November 1940 surpassed its trade with the Soviet Union. I would be surprised if the Soviets did indeed deliver ‘about 75%’ of the Third Reich’s imports: only 34% of the Third Reich’s oil came from the Soviet Union; it looks like the Kingdom of Romania was a much more important source of Fascism’s black gold.
The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France?
While not directly related to the pacts, the British Empire exported significant quantities of scrap to the Third Reich. In fact, the British Empire served as the Third Reich’s primary source of imported raw materials in the 1930s. I cannot say much about pre-1940 France’s economic relations with the Third Reich, but you sparked my curiosity on that subject.
fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it’s barely notch above outright holocaust denial.
Added to this, 75.3% of Europe’s Jewish refugees found refuge in the Soviet Union during World War II, Lithuanian Jews welcomed the Red Army in 1940, which had the highest number of Jews of all the Allied armies, and (my favourite) Soviet policies lead Transnistrians to resist antisemitism, even during Axis occupation.
Check Wikipedia/Хронология советской цензуры and references 45 and 46 there. I don’t particularly like mixing here several topics together as interchangeable statements: soviet people sacrificed greatly to stop the nazi aggression. Stalin is another great woe of soviet people. Stalin was very much on the same page with nazis when it came to dividing the territories, bad that the leopard ate his face.
I won’t deny the scientific studies.
I am speaking from personal and family experience
You literally are, that’s what you’re doing right here. You are saying your experience trumps the data.
Telling me what to think is totalitarian
totalitarian is when capitalists hold no political power, thus intrinsically evil.
Removed by mod
- Vaguely hates communism because that’s been the western cultural norm for the last century
- Decides to talk to some people who have actually lived under communism; every single one confirms that your view of communism is wildly inaccurate and states their preference for communism
- Goes back to hating communism anyway because both sides or something
The funniest shit I read today, the guy was sooooo fucking close.
I think you should use your experiences in Azerbaijan as a push to confront some of your biases, and re-examine your understanding of Socialism in the Soviet Union. It wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t “totalitarian” by any stretch either. The benefits of the Socialist economic structure are pined for precisely because they worked, and did so for the common people. There are improvements that can and have been made in other Socialist countries, but these improvements would not have been possible without the brave Soviet people pioneering Socialism as it exists in the real world.
Not totalitarian you say?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
My experience in Azerbaijan also included tales of when they were children passing curds to starving prisoners through chain fences in Kazakh gulags. The Soviet Union did more harm than good to the leftist movement and is used as the scary example every single time someone begins to think twice about the capitalist system they live under. Socialism is forever tainted by the USSR and severely struggles to remove that image. Fuck the USSR.
The Soviet Union did more harm than good to the leftist movement and is used as the scary example every single time someone begins to think twice about the capitalist system they live under. Socialism is forever tainted by the USSR and severely struggles to remove that image. Fuck the USSR.
The soviet union literally stopped nazi germany from doing a gargantuan genocide on eastern europe, it’s quite literally the biggest leftist victory hitherto and even now these eastern european countries still live off the crumbling infrastructure built during the soviet union period.
Only idiots parrot this narrative that the USSR was unimaginably bad, please educate yourself and purge this comical perception of the USSR, it’s only there to make you think there is no alternative.
Oh yes. All alone without help. And they didn’t start the whole thing together with Nazi Germany in the first place. And everyone was living happily ever after. Everyone weeped after the Soviet Union collapsed because we now have to live under horribly oppressive systems…
They continued to commit horrible atrocities after the war ended. On their “own” population so who cares.
All alone without help.
U.S. capitalism was far more useful to the Fascists than to the Soviet Union.
And they didn’t start the whole thing together with Nazi Germany in the first place.
The Empire of Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 would be a better starting point, but other candidates include 1935, 1937, 1938, and 1941. There was significantly more fighting throughout the 1930s than the 1920s. An important reason (if not the most important) for WWII was the Great Depression. See the link for details.
Far more useful… The soviet union was an ally of fascist nazi Germany.
The allies liberated western Europe and supplied loads of machinery to the soviet union. And thank god they did. And thank god they didn’t stop further west.
I am aware of the Soviet Union expelling fascists and Tsarists from the party, and punishing those found corrupt, criminals, or had been members of the White Army. I am aware of the GULAG administration that formed the early Soviet prison system, read Russian Justice for more on how that functioned. I am aware of the famine in the 1930s. I have read these articles, as pretty much every Western Communist has had to, these are not “gotchas.”
The real truth of the matter is that the western anti-Communist “Left” that denounces the USSR and every real attempt at building Socialism plays into the hands of the US Empire. The Soviet Union was a massive victory for the working class, the first real Socialist state in history, and with it came dramatic improvements in key life metrics and working class dignity.
-
Life expectancy doubled.
-
The economy was democratized, following the method of Soviet Democracy
- Wealth inequality shrank, while economic growth boomed:
-
Large expansions in social safety nets were made, such as free and high quality education and healthcare.
-
Housing rates skyrocketed, and literacy rates over tripled to 99.9%.
-
Food security was achieved in a country that was always food insecure.
-
The Red Army defeated the Nazis, with 80% of the combat of World War II on the Eastern Front.
-
The Soviet Union supported countless liberation movements, such as in Cuba, Algeria, and more.
And many, many more achievements. People who denounce the USSR maintain unstated approval for the other Great Power, the United States, which without the USSR would have been entirely unopposed. The US, which committed Imperialist slaughter and even genocide in Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Angola, Palestine, and many, many more countries, was opposed primarily by the Soviets.
The Soviet Union was by no means perfect, nobody asserts that, but to claim that the Soviet Union did “more harm than good to the Leftist movement” is ludicrous. This is the sentiment of Western Chauvanists that don’t want to support Socialism unless they are the ones who acheive it. Jones Maonel was spot on in Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, but not Real Revolution.
You should read Dr. Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds, or at the very least the sections on “Left” Anti-Communism.
u dropped this 👑
Doing my best as a baby ML 🫡
Always love and appreciate your comments, comrade!
You’re appreciated
“Tens of millions died, but lines went up!”
You know, you’d probably make a better capitalist than you think.
Tens of millions? I suppose it was the USSR’s fault that the Nazis declared war and committed genocide? Or are you crying for the Nazis? Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.
You’re right it was only about 5 million. The tens of millions was from Mao.
Keep peddling debunked Black Book of Communism mythology, I guess.
-
Things were different in the periphral nations, than in the center. Those who read your comments with heritage from the peripheral will understand you, and the others will not.
100% agree : I won’t deny the nostalgia factor !
Removed by mod
100% this. Im from Russia and I have heard many horrible stories from older relatives about previous generations and life under the USSR. Life is definitely shitty now, but it’s still better than those years
Yeah because working outside and still doing all the domestic work is so much better than being confined to the house. Who needs feminism?
No doubt the Soviet Union was a huge step forward for women but this is just a dumb thing to say. Women doing unpaid household labour and emotional labour has always been the case.
The USSR was also the first country on a large scale to move unpaid domestic labour into the paid socialized sector: it created communal kitchens, communal child-care, all paid for by the state. The PRC followed that same model.
How are you liberals this ignorant of these attempts? Marxist feminists started the domestic labor debate, and were the only ones who attempted to put solutions into practice.
You don’t need all of these communal things if a family simply raises their kids in a traditional way. What you’re describing is the commoditization of the nuclear family. It’s roundabout and worse overall. No one will love your kids and care for them like you will. Also the state pays for nothing because the state makes no money. It comes from the labor of the people. So really the mom is forced into the workforce to pay for childcare. Lol.
Hello I have one nuclear family to sell in the form of watching their child for a few hours. I am also in the market to buy. I also buy them by watching their kids.
The word I use for that is commoditization. That’s what it means.
Thank you.
Yeah exactly. Mom is going to work to pay for someone to watch her kids when she could just do it herself.
So you just woke up from your mother’s womb today and experienced the concepts of ‘division of labor’ and ‘commerce’ for the first time, huh?
Context: Just so no one gets confused— The scenario in this post is that the woman presumably who does not want to go to work, possibly because she wants to stay at home and be a domestic worker, is forced to by the state. There is no mysoginy here. Just a comment on what a woman is being forced to do against her will when she may, instead, want to be a mother which is totally fine and normal.
Comment: You can ignore my point if you want. This post is about women being forced to enter the workforce when they want to stay at home. The cope for this disempowerment is that “the state” (e.g. some other person) will raise her kids while she does whatever she is ordered to do. If you don’t see this as anti-human and dystopian I can’t do anything for you.
Commentary: The banning on this instance is a sign of weakness and intellectual dishonesty. My point is valid and actually in support of a woman’s choice in how she wants to live her life. Engage with the idea or accept your sickness as a shill/grievance monger. Lord have mercy.
Removed by mod
The reason I’m ‘ignoring’ your point is because you’re a fucking moron acting in bad faith. You took the existence of child care as a state service and morphed it in your mind palace to mean parents aren’t raising their children anymore.
And ‘forced’ to go to work? Are you a fucking child? Work is how food and shelter happens literally everywhere they exist and in every possible economic system. Your ‘point’ is saying normal things in a scary voice. So the only productive way to engage with you is through mockery and insults. Because you’re fucking stupid, buddy.
What about trans women?
Seems like the soviet government was more responsive than contemporary western governments, but not as much as east Germany: https://artsmatter.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2025/01/28/trans-visibility-in-the-late-soviet-union/#%3A~%3Atext=First%2C+they+became+visible%2C+at%2Crecognized+as+ordinary+Soviet+citizens.
“Mysagonist” misogynist… Typo or am I missing a joke about agony under Stalin?
Nothing makes you feel agony quite like free healthcare and education.
Excess mortality usually comes from invading burgeryanker kkkolonizer scum
Yes, there are many women working at science institutes in post-soviet countries. As lab technicians with extremely low wages. There are almost no women directors or women lab heads. These are all men. In Russia, women occupy majority of work places in education and, yes, science. But mostly as low-paying teachers and lab technicians. There are of course exceptions. But this post doesn’t really show the reality and gives false idea about women experiences in soviet and then post-soviet countries.
Edited to say that I know it’s in memes, but I just got triggered…
Ah, right! This is among the reasons why Russia has the lowest share of seats held by women in politics (won’t go into business) in Europe (Statista).
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
bolshevik states aren’t famous for freedom of career choice
What is your basis for this opinion? Have you read any books, articles, or interviews on this topic?
And how much career choice do I have, really, under capitalism? Tons of jobs don’t even pay a subsistence wage, to say nothing of a wage that would let someone do basic things like own a home and raise a family. A bunch of other career paths are blocked by various types of non-merit barriers. If you do find a job that pays decently, you have very little control over the actual work and can usually be re-assigned to a different task with no recourse.
libtard
Removed by mod
