Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Youthful Poems

I wrote these poems my senior year of high school (so four years ago).  They are interesting because they reflect my style of writing even now.

Doubt
While I love the way you talk,
I doubt I can trust you to take the walk.
Your devotion for me
May someday leave you feeling un-free.
Like the bodies of the dead run cold,
I am afraid your love for me will grow old.
Our glistening life together will drain out of sun
And you may wish to forevermore freely run.
Eventually you will unshackle your heart
And leave me to depart.

 
Thoughts
My heart leaps up when I behold
Something important to be told.
When an idea comes to morph my thoughts,
It leaves me feeling up in knots.
But when I unearth the answer from a day to night,
I feel alive with delight.


My Lost One
Through the days and nights
My soul wept.
Not for you but for my lost one instead.

While sleeping soundly, I cried from within.
Will I ever find my lost one and when?
I think about all the times I’ve had
And wonder if it was at all worth it in the end.

After some time I decide
You weren’t worth being by my side.
I now know that I need time
To find myself and live without
The fake façade that sparked doubt.


Europe
My heart was like space
Exploring with new taste.
My sight like an infant,
Seeing everything new and bright.
My hearing like a new echo
Filled with fresh sounds.
All these new sights and sounds
Came to fill me up to discover
Its new lands and waters.

  
Always War
War.
Always War.
But what is it for?
Like death, it’s unavoidable.
But why must we fight when we can speak?
Why must we kill to get what we desire?
Do we go to war to do what’s right?
Or is some of it out of spite?
Maybe it’s all a fabrication covering
the light to the truth
To achieve political values and its morals.

Death. Danger. Damage. Destruction.
Is this really what we want?


Wonderful  Darkness
Euphoria is all she feels.

The birds, the trees,
The flowers, and the bees.

Serenity possesses her.

The mind of her sun brightens up her day.

Like the vibrant sky, everything around her intoxicates her with
joy.

Peace. Love. Bliss.

It’s something she will never have to miss.

Anguish is all he feels.

His mind is plagued
With what he made.

Serenity broke away.

The mind of his sun deadens his day.

Like the dead sky, everything around him intoxicates him with gloom.

Darkness. Fear. Hate.

It must be his fate.


The True Light

Life is filled with wonder.
We emerge innocent and naïve.
Everyone struggling to guard
          us and deceive.
A veil rests over our eyes
Covered with deceit and lies.

The veil is crisp
And it always eventually tears and rips.
It lets in the blinding true light
From the midnight sun so bright.

Life is filled with simplicity in the beginning.
Full of smiles and laughter.
Hope and wonder.
Dreams and whispers...

The murmurs of truth
Come to tell us life is uncouth.
Hopes and dreams are left neglect
While hearts are wrecked.
Loved ones go cold
And lies unfold.

Innocence is smothered to a shattering end.

Life is filled with dread.
But we must go on
And forget the mess
To relieve our helpless stress.
We must find hope
To fulfill our dreams and cope
And find our own true light.

A Quote from Anne Frank


‘It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can't build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery, and death...and yet...I think...this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.’

A truly inspirational figure.

The Pure Horror of One's Own Self




*Photos composed with Photoshop from my travel pictures from Europe and pictures of Lykki Li, one of my favorite musical artists who's from Sweden.  My friend and I actually saw her in concert in New Orleans. She's amazing! I took her in a completely different direction with this art so don't think she's a horrid person at all!

Here is one of her songs recomposed by Mikael:


We also saw First Aid Kit, a young duet from Sweden who came with Lykke Li to perform. This song is actually a cover from Fever Ray, who are also another amazing band from Sweden.  Fever Ray's music was also featured in that movie, Red Riding Hood.



Flowers in the Attic

A Lovely Photo Depicting V.C. Andrews' book Flowers in the Attic


This has always been one of my favorite novels which I have read over and over throughout the years.

Here is a lovely poem by Herewithme:

The flowers in the attic
have faded in the sun
they used to be so beautiful
now natures work has been undone

they were once in a beloved garden
where the children once played
but were harvested and placed in a vase
one cold winter's day

they sat there day and night
to make the room more attractive
but as the petals wilted,
and as the stems began to rot
the hope of all new life was forgot

they were transported to the attic
like it was embarrassing to see them
so there they sat, in the dank, still air
sad and alone. never to blossom again
The Origin of The Family, Private 
Property, and the State 
A Summary


The origin, written by Friedrich Engels, is significantly based on Karl Marxs notes from the book Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization by Lewis Henry Morgan, an American anthropologist.  After his death, Marxs notes were picked up by Engels who transformed them into The Origin.  It is important to remember that The Origin is composed of the thoughts of many people as Engels was influenced by many.  Engels was influenced by Marx and Morgan as mentioned before, but hes also influenced by Bachofen, who wrote Mother Right and believed in the historical change of the sexes to monogamy.  Engels was also influenced by J.F. McLennan who was regarded as the pioneer of developing a history of the family.

 
Engels’ Origin of the Family, like Morgan’s Ancient Society, subdivides human history into three stages: savagery, barbarism, and civilization.  These stages are divided according to the progress made in food production: namely hunter gatherer societies under savagery, horticultural societies under barbarism, and commodity production under civilization.  The progress made in food production led to changes in the social organization of society; this is a materialistic explanation of society where society’s production (the production of the means of existence: food, shelter, tools) & society’s reproduction (the propagation of the species) determines society’s social organization.  Increases in food production over the three stages of human history led to changes in the social organization of kinship arrangements which are built upon differing arrangements of marriage.  Increases in food production over the stages also led to different social organizations of the division of labor, the rise of surplus production, and the gentile constitution giving way to the state.  Another important aspect of these stages are the gens, which was a kinship organization based on blood relation with descent recognized from the female line.  The gens was also bound together through religious and social institutions between whom marriage was prohibited.  The gens is based on matrilineal descent due to the fact that women are more easily identified as the biological mother as they literally carry the next generation.

The economic base of society (production) determines the superstructure of society (the family); this is a materialistic explanation of society.  As the economic base of society increased in wealth due to the increase of production, the family is transformed into the monogamous family.  In other words the amassing of property or surplus (the mode of production or the economic base of society) broke up the gens, replacing it with the modern single monogamous family (the superstructure of society) dominated by private property, social classes, and the state.


The three stages of human history begins with Savagery.  Savagery, or what modern anthropology refers to as hunter gatherer society, was dominated by group marriage, the gens with matrilineal kinship, and equality between women and men where the sexes had a ‘natural’ division of labor.  According to Engels, this ‘natural’ division of labor is a sexual division of labor which proclaims that women naturally own the household, having real supremacy over her own labor within the household.  Men, on the other hand, naturally own the instruments of productive labor which are responsible for the ‘productive work’ of obtaining and producing food.  The stage of savagery experienced two types of group marriage: the consanguine family and the punaluan family.  Both the consanguine family and punaluan family had prearranged marriages decided before birth where whole groups of men and women mutually possess one another in marriage.  The first stage of the family is the consanguine family, which excludes marriage between parents and children (i.e. exclusion of marriage between generations) but not among brothers, sisters and cousins who are all held together in group marriage.  The consanguine family gives way to the punaluan family, which is the second stage of the family and prevents brothers, sisters, and cousins from marrying.  Due to this exclusion of marriage among sisters, brothers, and cousins within the punaluan family, the gens develops where descent is recognized through the mother.  The gens separates brothers and sisters into different families.

The second stage of human history is Barbarism, which is comparable to horticultural or pastoral societies.  The third stage of the family, the pairing family, comes to fruition under Barbarism where marriage is decided by the parents and prohibits marriage among all relatives, ending group marriage for good.  The pairing marriage is between one unrelated woman with one unrelated man, giving men a better warrant of paternity but still not passing down inheritance to the man’s children.  While group marriage comes to a close under Barbarism and ends group marriage as the pairing marriage rises, the gens with matrilineal descent still lives on becoming common to all, leaves men with better paternity, and is characterized by the supremacy of women since women were all from the same gens under one family while men were separated into the different families of the women.


Barbarism is also the beginning of animal domestication and the origin of agriculture, which coincides with the transition from the pairing family to the monogamous family as they are connected through a materialist explanation where increases in production lead to changes in the superstructure, the family.  In the eastern hemisphere of the world animal domestication becomes prominent, while the western hemisphere is dominated by agriculture.  This is where the two hemispheres of the world split from each other into different stages of human history.  The eastern hemisphere marched on through Barbarism and on into Civilization, while the western hemisphere becomes inert, remaining in Barbarism until the eastern hemisphere conquered the west.  This stagnation of the west is due to the lack of animals capable of being domesticated.  In the east, however, animal domestication flourished, increasing production as domesticated herds aided in the process of crop production.  This increase in production included all branches, i.e. cattle raising, agriculture, domestic handicrafts.  This increase in production lead to a crop surplus and created a regular exchange system.  This crop surplus of the east resulted in the first great social division of labor where pastoral societies separated from the rest of the barbarians or from the Barbarism Stage and transitioned into Civilization.  As an increase in production due to the labor of domesticated animals lead to an increase in surplus, new labor forces were needed to maintain this growth in production.  Slavery became the answer to maintaining growth in production and became functional within society unlike never before.  Before, slavery was worthless as human labor power couldn’t before produce a surplus.  As slavery became functional within society, it produced the first great cleavage of society into classes where there were masters and there were slaves; one group was composed of exploiters while the other was exploited for their surplus producing labor.  Also, for the first time, wars were waged as a regular industry for the sole purpose of plunder to gain their property for wealth.  Domesticated animals were passed out of the common ownership of the gens and into the ownership of individual heads of families as a cleavage of society into classes can’t maintain a harmonized or coherent society like the gens.

Barbarism began with the pairing family where men and women were still relatively equal, but, with a surplus in production, a transition to monogamy ensued.  Therefore, this is a materialistic explanation where a change in the production with the beginning of a surplus (the material basis for the change) affected the superstructure of society: the family.  The family began the transition to monogamy due to the economic changes in production.  This revolution of the family to monogamy only occurred in the east, not the west until eastern intervention.  This revolution of the family is constructed from the first ‘natural’ division of labor between the sexes.  In other words, the already-in-place ‘natural’ division of labor guided how the family was constructed.  Men have always acquired the necessities of life owning and producing the means of production, while women utilize the products produced by men in order to run the household which they own.  The ‘natural’ division of labor doesn’t cause the transition to monogamy (a surplus owned by the men does) but it sets the stage for an altered form of the family.  As men have always owned the means of production, they inherited the domesticated animals and slaves as they are both tool of production.  Women don’t own the domesticated animals and slaves; their realm of ownership is within the household, which was at first considered as equally important as owning the means of production.  As stated before, domesticated animals and slaves produced a surplus, which became the property of men, not women.  Women still enjoyed the surplus created from animal production by men, but they didn’t own it.  In other words, the ‘natural’ division of labor between men and women stayed the same, but it structured the division of property between women and men as men solely owned the new property of the cattle and slaves which produced a surplus.  Therefore, men alone owned the surplus, giving men an advantage over women as they had more wealth which created unequal power between men and women.  With this advantage, men overthrew the matriarchal gens and replaced it with the single monogamous family based on male inheritance as we now know today.  This was done by men in order to put in place a system of male lineage where their male children inherited the surplus and the surplus producing property of domesticated animals and slaves.  The transition to monogamy and the abolition of the gens was a step taken by men due to their exploitive position.  The surplus they gained through slaves and domesticated animals increased their wealth and amplified their position over women within the family.  With this leverage over women, men overthrew the gens in order to secure inheritance rights for their children, passing inheritance on through the male line instead of the female line.  Ever since the overthrow of the gens, women have been degraded to the servitude of men, becoming instruments of reproduction to ensure the paternity and inheritance rights of his children.

During the ending of Barbarism the second social division of labor occurs where handicraft production is separated from agricultural production.  This leads to commodity production where production is no longer for use by producers but is directly exchanged for money or cattle which acts in the place of money.  In other words, production becomes no longer used by the producer, but is now exchanged for cattle and later money.  Slavery now becomes essential to society where freemen and slaves become the new cleavage of class society.  Since there are inequalities in property ownership among the men in individual heads of families, it breaks up communities, leading to the erosion of kinship and the movement of people no longer bound to their territory.  The transition to private property due to a surplus in production (the economic base) leads to changes to the single monogamous family (the superstructure).

This now brings us to the stage of civilization: the current stage of human history.  Civilization is characterized by the monogamous single family, commodity production with exchange between individuals, and the state which overthrew the gentile constitution of previous times.  Civilization only developed in the eastern hemisphere, until it was brought into the west during colonization.  Civilization is dominated by the monogamous family, the fourth stage of the family.  Under the monogamous family, marriage is decided by economics as the single family is the economic unit in society.  The monogamous family is based on male supremacy as monogamy is used to subjugate women who are used to produce children with undisputable paternity in order to pass down the property of domesticated animals and slaves through the male line.  Before both women and men’s tasks were social and public (women upheld the communistic household while men produced food communistically), but, under the monogamous family, the household lost its public character, moving into the private sector where women were excluded from public production.  While the term monogamy implies sex with only one other person, the ‘monogamous’ family is actually supplemented by adultery and prostitution.  This is because marriage is predominately decided by economics, which makes it a matter of convenience and not a matter of love.  The monogamous family didn’t develop due to matters of sex love but due to economic reasons where men could pass down private property through the male line.  

Civilization also leads to the third great social division of labor where the merchants were born.  The merchants became the mediators between the producers, creating a division between those who direct production (the merchants) and those who execute production (the producers).  The merchants’ primary concern is with exchanging products for profit, not with production.  This third social division of labor led to periodical trade crises; metallic money as an instrument of domination of the non-producer over the producer; loans leading to interest; wealth in commodities, increases in slaves, money, and land; the concentration and centralization of wealth increasing mass impoverishment; and the breaking up of the settled conditions of life from the repeated shifting and changing of residence due to the pressure of trade, alteration of occupation, and changes in ownership of land.

As stated previously, the state comes to dominate society with the birth of civilization replacing the old gentile constitution of previous stages of human history.  The gentile constitution was a social institution that divided society based on the gens and was for the will of the people requiring members to be settled in the same territory.  Division of labor under the gentile constitution is based on the ‘natural’ division of labor where only the sexes are divided, each the master in their own sphere and owning the instruments of their labor.  Under this system, there are no poor or slaves, no ruler reigning over the people, and no complicated administrative apparatus.  All are equal and free with no difference between rights and duties among people.  As the state took over society due to the sale and purchase of land and the progressive division of labor, the gentile constitution sank to the level of private associations and religious bodies.  The state came from the material need to support and maintain the new system of the monogamous family where men owned private property (i.e. the surplus producing slaves and domesticated animals, the money, etc.).

The state is a machine for the plundering, oppression, and domination of others in order to protect the possessing class against the non-possessing class to secure riches and sanctify the private property of men, classes, and male privilege.  The state requires many features in order to function.  First, it requires people be grouped on the basis of territory where traditional kinship is eroded in order to break people apart into classes.  Territory becomes heterogeneous where slaves, citizens, and foreigners all coincide in the same territory.  The state also requires an armed public force consisting of an army, prisons, a police force, and other coercive institutions.  This armed public force is separated from the masses of the people, serving state authorities not the people as it’s impossible to have a people’s army because of the cleavage of society into classes.  Third, the state needs class opposition and division where the privileged have the rights and the unprivileged have the duties of society, setting people against each other in classes.  Fourth, the state necessitates an alienating power standing above the warring classes of society in order to suppress open conflict and keep it within the bounds of ‘order’ letting the classes fight it out on an economic level.  Fifth, the state needs taxes to maintain the armed public force, which inevitably leads to state debt as it’s never enough.

Engels proposes society is moving towards a fifth stage of the family which I’ve termed the egalitarian family where marriage is decided by ‘sex love.’  Previously, marriage was decided before birth under group marriages, by parents under the pairing family, and by economics under the monogamous family of civilization.  The monogamous family still holds true even today as marriage is still linked with material economic wellbeing (i.e. women still marry men as a security measure where our culture is pervaded by the idea that women need men in order to survive economically).  Engels argues that society’s production, the economic base of society, will eventually lead to the development of social property instead of private property.  Private property with its ownership over land, animals, slaves, and money is the economic foundations of the monogamous family and the material conditions for the existence of patriarchy.   Engels argues that with a social revolution of society’s production into social property, monogamy will be truly realized.  This social revolution will transform the means of production into social property where women can prosper economically without the security of men.  The labor of women will leave the private sector of society and will no longer be excluded from social production; this will lead to the destruction of the monogamous family where patriarchy rules under private property.

Outlaw Needs



Outlaw Needs the illegitimate, non-hegemonic ways we meet our basic needs of love, affection, education, leisure time, health care, food, shelter, etc. Examples: non-heterosexual love, using illegal drugs as a recreational activity or as a medicine, robbery

The fight for social justice isn’t just about anger and outrage.  Anger and outrage are merely the starting point for understanding why we’re so motivated (and unmotivated) to resist.  For example, many out there see the #Occupy Movement as just a mass riot of trouble making, angry anarchists with no objectives or demands. The anger is real and legitimate, precisely because our needs and the needs of our loved ones aren’t being met.  We’re out there because oppression and exploitation proliferate and control us.  Our health care is shitty, exploitative, profit motivated.  Our lives revolve around meaningless consumerism. Our jobs, if we have one, are alienating, boring, underpaid, meticulous, competitive. Our very lives and the lives of those we love are broken and fragmented, destroyed by forces which are kept invisible and hidden from our eyes.

Yes, this movement is fired by anger, an anger which should be understood, realized, and paid close attention to, but—complimentary to that—a movement endures through our love for others and for our community.  We human beings want fulfilling, enriching lives where we are free to act and love in a world which is safe, but we are, although rightfully, too busy with the agony and pain we are experiencing under a system that hasn’t been addressing our fundamental needs.

It is important to recognize that love is connected to our survival needs.  Historical Materialism1, in fact, takes survival needs as a starting point (i.e., as a species we require food, shelter, etc.).  But humans meet these needs socially—through concrete, historically-specific modes of social organization. We keep our bodies alive through social interaction as we must support one another and care for one another in order to survive.  The easiest example is the one where caretakers feed, cloth, and care for young who are helpless on their own.  This demonstrates that we need one another and need love from others in order to survive and thrive.  Hence, social interaction IS a vital need just as water or food is a vital need.  Love IS a vital need as we need others to care about us in order to survive.

Workers in capitalist society, however, don’t control their human needs, but are in fact outlawed and controlled.  This is one site of struggle under capitalism.  When workers exchange their labor power for a wage, they’re forced to give up their human needs in several ways.  First, the minimum wage isn’t a livable wage as it doesn’t cover the costs of basic needs (i.e. food, clothing, housing, health care, education, intellectual and creative development).  Second, the production of labor power (i.e. care for the proceeding generations of workers, children) is not fully covered by wages.  The feeding, clothing, and caring of children is underpaid or unpaid as this has been seen as women’s natural unpaid role, i.e. the mother.  Third, and lastly, consciousness has been commodified, which has separated mind from body, public from private, ways of knowing from their historical material conditions, and love from the meeting of human needs.

Critical psychology was elaborated in the early 1970s by European Marxists who rejected mainstream bourgeois psychology. One of their key concepts is Action Potence, which refers to an individual’s ability to satisfy needs and assure a satisfactory life.  There are two types of Action Potence: Restricted Action Potence and Generalized Action Potence.  Restricted Action Potence refers to an individual trying to make the best of their current position. Generalized Action Potence, on the other hand, refers to an individual trying to go beyond their current positioning in order to better their existing position. The first refers to action that is immanent to the existing order, while the latter attempts to transcend that order.

Restricted Action Potence is encouraged under capitalism as it maintains the capitalist system by producing compliant subjects who accept their current, alienating social conditions.  Sexual identities (and all other reified identities) are an example of Restricted Action Potence as they restrict the power to collectively change the existing society as it divides social relationships.  So what is the Generalized Action Potence which can see change and go beyond our existing conditions?  Revolutionary love which begins with our human needs and relates them to the historical reality of capitalism and to the form of society that will emerge from its ashes. 

Outlaw needs are the grounds for beginning the process of politicizing capitalism and people.  We need to tap into people’s alienated labor, their costly health care, their dead end jobs which pay little, their dehumanized sexualities, their depleting leisure time, even their boredom.  This is the starting point for politicizing people and helping them see that capitalism is a dead end.  Our own personal lives are destructed and decaying due to the current exploitative system of capitalism which outlaws so many of our basic needs.


 We must also begin with the exiting realities and see that we cannot dismiss people’s experiences, which are organized through reified categories (like gender and sexual identities), but we must work on them and beyond them through the process of creating collective consciousness. And that’s not just a rational process, but one that is also affective, emotional and symbolic.  We should work on forming collective consciousness through disidentification. That is to say, through an unlearning practice/process where we work on our existing ways of identifying by uprooting them in order to see them in a historical frame which was produced from a mode of production which outlaws many human needs.  This process is not easy, and can lead to fear, anger, and frustration as it calls into question the identities we’ve relied on our whole lives.  This process is never over as we are limited by our historical position and always in a position of reworking our awareness to make visible the historical and material conditions of capitalist culture.

(1) According to The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, historical materialism’s starting point for social theory is the presence of real living individuals who need to produce what is needed to survive (i.e. Species Being).  Under Capitalism, our Species Being is mediated by the collective of human laborers, but these human laborers are stratified into a class structure where the product of their labor is owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie in order to accumulate a profit.  Capitalists extract this surplus labor from human laborers in order to obtain a profit.  

 What is Feminism? An Introduction to Feminist Theory by Chris Beasley summarizes seven definable “types” of feminism which include Liberal, Radical, Marxist, Socialist, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern or Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity Feminists.  There are many more definable categories of feminism but the book restricts itself to these seven westernized feminisms, which I think is a mistake.  This is a mistake because it limits what feminism is as a whole, taking in only some of the pieces of the whole puzzle.  Without a complete puzzle, the finished picture cannot be discerned, nor be meaningfully discussed.  However, this focus on a few western feminisms does help us zoom in a bit, aiding us in getting a closer look at specific areas of feminism or specific pieces of the puzzle.

While feminism is difficult to define and has extremely diverse perspectives, there are some premises that can be discerned.  Feminism is usually understood as expanding, altering, or breaking away from traditional social and political thought or what could also be referred to as mainstream thought.  Mainstream thought is seen as being flawed as it’s seen as being ‘malestream’, focusing on men as the center of analysis and leaving women to the sidelines who are viewed as second rate men or other.  Mainstream thought is also structured by misogyny and dualisms with hierarchies, which Feminists reject to varying degrees.  Feminism is also an alternative to the normative (the mainstream) which concentrates on women or womanhood as the center of analysis, although there is much debate within feminism about how woman or womanhood should be defined.

While Feminism in general does see sexual difference as shaping the social and political (i.e. how we think and feel), there are five different viewpoints within feminism about sexual difference.  First, there is the notion of sameness where women and men are seen as being the same.  This view is linked to Liberal Feminism and Marxist/Socialist Feminism.  The Second view sees differences between men and women but challenges the hierarchy between men and women.  This view is linked to Radical and Psychoanalytic Feminists.  The third view shifts its focus away from the sameness/difference dichotomy to the question of power, wishing to resist and destabilize sexual hierarchy.  This view is linked to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists.  The fourth view sees men as potential political allies for the struggles of women where men and women are seen as becoming similar through political struggle and alliance.  This view is linked to Race/Ethnicity Feminists, Socialist Feminists, and Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists.  The fifth view of sexual difference sees women as morally or innately superior to men.  This last view is linked to Radical Feminists. 


There are four major groupings of feminists: Classical, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern/Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity.  Classical Feminists include Liberal, Radical, Marxist, and Socialist Feminists, all of which focus on realism and materialism and stress the externalized factors of oppression.  Liberal Feminism, also termed penis envy feminism, focuses on the individual, reform, sameness, the public sphere, and Welfare Liberalism.  Liberal Feminists wish to reform policies and practices (i.e. endorse welfare liberalism where benefits and opportunities are redistributed but doesn’t challenge the organization of society) to allow individual women equal access to the male dominated public sphere.  This perspective likens equality to letting women being able to do what men do.  This view is much less structural, not seeing the inherent incapabilities of capitalism to give women liberation.  Liberal feminism is also very focused in on the mainstream, seeing women’s oppression as individualist problems needing fixing through changing individuals.  It doesn’t see the capitalistic system as inherently oppressing women or other minority groups, much less see how it’s oppressing all people.  Like my parents, they don’t see the entire capitalistic system oppressing its people.  What they do see is the negative outcomes of capitalistic society, but they don’t relate it to capitalism as inherently oppressive.  Notice I emphasized inherently.  I’ve emphasized inherently because my parents, and many other liberals, do recognize the problems found within capitalism (i.e. the drive for profit, deregulation, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.) but they don’t see capitalism as the main problem.  They believe reforming the system (not overthrowing the system) is the way to go, but they don’t see that once reform/reregulation is achieved it will at some point be obliterated due to capitalism’s need to oppress all people in order to exploit their labor for profit, separate and isolate people through ideology in order to keep their focus off the inherent ruthlessness of capitalism, and tear apart the welfare system in order to further make a profit concentrated in the hands of the very rich1.


Radical Feminism focuses on the private sphere (i.e. sexuality, bodies, sexual violence, the reproductive body, feminine motherhood), difference, separatism, patriarchy/men being the main enemy being fought, and on revolution through small-scale action.  I have always found Radical Feminism as strange, but at the same time intriguing.  Just like Liberal Feminism and maybe all Feminisms, Radical Feminism is narrow in its perspective.  While Radical Feminism does critique patriarchy and heterosexuality critically in useful ways, it doesn’t seem to sympathize with men and sees separatism away from men as the answer (these are broad statements; not all Radical Feminists believe this way).  They see men as the enemy being fought, as something to separate from in order to create spaces for women.  While I do think it’s important for women to be able to discuss the variety of issues at hand and create “safe spaces” without the presence of men in order to facilitate skills that men dominate in, we can’t separate ourselves completely and endlessly from men.  Why is this?  Because men aren’t inherently oppressive.  Capitalism is inherently oppressive, not men.  After all, if we hold to separatism, how can you explain my own radicalization without the influence of two men who really expanded my understanding of feminism itself?  Also, if we separate from each other as men and women, then we lose the experiences of the other, which I believe is critical for understanding the ways in which capitalism shapes all our lives in oppressive systems.  Radical Feminists are sometimes perceived as critiquing men as the ones who are inherently oppressive, which I don’t agree with.  To illustrate my point in a different way, blacks are oppressed under the capitalistic system, but blacks aren’t biologically, inherently, essentially oppressed outside the confines of capitalism.  Radical Feminism also maintains sometimes biological, clear-cut differences between men and women, seeing women as something to celebrate, leaving men to the side as something not worthy of their time.  I think men are worthy of our time.  As a preliminary tactic while we hasten and await, men need to develop alongside women in order to facilitate a process of growth outside of capitalist oppressive structures.
 
Marxist Feminism focuses on economics, class, capitalism, revolution, sameness, collectivity, and the public sphere.  Marxist Feminists see capitalism as the main enemy being fought, as opposed to Radical Feminists who see men and patriarchy as the main enemy.  Marxist Feminism’s idea of sameness is different from that of Liberal Feminism’s idea of sameness.  While Liberal Feminists see sameness as something women need to achieve on par with men (women need to become like men, having equality within the public sphere of politics, government, and social life), Marxist Feminists see sameness as something that has been disrupted by capitalism.  Without capitalism, women and men wouldn’t differ very much.  Marxist Feminism see oppressed people through a collective lens, believing men, women, and all oppressed people need to come together in unity as workers of exploitive wage labor in order to overthrow the oppressive  and exploitive structures of capitalism.  They see unity among the proletariat as we all are exploited for our labor.  They say we can’t unite under identity politics in the long run (i.e. gender/sexual identity, racial identity, etc.).  Rather we must unite under our common exploited labor, which is where our sameness lies.  Marxist Feminism sees class relations as built upon a hierarchy where wealth is distributed unequally; they also see class relations as the source of power, oppression, and inequality.  Lastly, Marxist Feminists see class oppression as the creator of sexual oppression and as the primary oppression of women.  Radical Feminists, on the other hand, see sexual oppression as the creator of class oppression and as the primary oppression of women.  In other words, Radical Feminists see the interrelations between men and women as primary to oppression, while Marxist Feminists see economics as primary to oppression.  As debates occurred between Radical Feminists and Marxist Feminists in the 1960s and 1970s over the causes of oppression, Socialist Feminism was birthed as an inbetween drawing from both Marxist and Radical Feminists perspectives to form one cohesive viewpoint.  Socialist Feminists look critically at both capitalism and patriarchy, bring them together into a single analysis.  This Socialist analysis critiques both class relations and sex/gender, relating them together.


The 2nd major feminist grouping are Psychoanalytic Feminists, which include Freudian, Lacanian, and Post-Lacanian French Feminists.  All of these types of feminisms deal with the issue of difference, seeing women as other.  They focus not just on the economic aspects of power but also on the psychological aspects.  Freudian Feminism focuses on differences due to the formation of subjectivities, the category of sex, the mother who helps form a sexed self, and believe altering the psychological will change social relations.  While critiquing the psychological element of humans is of importance for analysis and can be of help in changing individual people away from capitalistic ideology, Freudian Feminism is limited in its ability to change the system.  It doesn’t seem to be too critical of the capitalistic system, and its analysis seems to forgo seeing things through the lens of the oppressive and exploitive capitalistic system.  Like Susie Orbach’s book Bodies2, she seems to have a good understanding of our psychology and bodies, but she doesn’t base our psychology as due to a capitalistic system but rather on the beauty, fashion, etc. industries within the system.  Lacanian Feminism focuses on the abstract, difference due to the sexed self, language which is based on a symbolic system of differences where the sexed self arises, and the symbolic phallus which is the ultimate signifying mechanism of society.  The self and sexuality are seen as socially constructed, arising out of language and the symbolic phallus, which are both masculinized.  Lacanian Feminists believe the outsider status of femininity can’t exist outside the masculinized arrangement of society.  This makes sense; if the dichotomy of masculine and feminine are obliterated, then neither one will exist anymore.  The current state of femininity can’t exist outside the current dominate masculinized culture because femininity is based on subordination, submission, and oppression.  Post-Lacanian French Feminism rejects this notion of femininity being utterly castrated.  While French Feminism does accept the notion that femininity is an outsider status under the current arrangement of society, they believe a new, alternative language needs to be developed which destabilizes the existing order and challenges the way women are interpreted in language and culture.  Lacanian Feminism and French Feminism seem to both have slightly different angles on the subject.  Lacanian Feminists interpret women/femininity as an inferior position (which it is under the current dominate system of capitalism), while French Feminism critiques this inferior position of women, calling for a reinterpretation of the current position of women.

The third major grouping of feminists are Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists (i.e. Post Feminists) and Queer Theorists, all of which stress the differences between men and women and who also stress differences among women and vice versa.  As opposed to other Feminists, they really emphasis difference to the point of rejecting any sort of unity (universalism) between people.  They reject universalism as it marginalizes differences and is connected to domination and censorship.  For example, if there is unity between men and women then these Feminists see this as a way to ignore the differences between them and therefore the domination of men occurs under this “unity”.  They also reject any form of fixed categories or identities (i.e. woman, black, middle-class, straight, etc.) saying we’re all essentially different.  These Feminists are perhaps correct to state that we are all different, but aren’t we similar in some ways also?  Aren’t we all made of flesh, blood, bone, have brains which are the center of the nervous system, take in nutrients into our bodies to survive, cry, and so many other things?  We obviously have our similarities, but Post Feminists may make it sound like we have none at all.  Even under a capitalistic society which divides us into categories/identities, we still have our similarities.  Under capitalism we are ALL oppressed.  Isn’t that a similarity, even if those oppressions are different?  Under capitalism, workers predominately work under exploitive wage labor.  Now isn’t that a similarity?  While Post Feminists do reject universalism, their main focus isn’t on this sameness/difference dichotomy.  They’ve shifted their focus to the question of power wanting to destabilize and resist hierarchy.  Like Radical Feminists, I am very drawn to Post Feminists/Queer Theorists, even if I don’t completely agree with them… But I don’t completely agree with ANY one “type” of particular feminism.

The last major grouping of feminists are Race/Ethnicity Feminists who are similar to Post Feminists/Queer Theorists in that they also reject universalism, sameness, identity categories, etc. as they see it as marginalizing minority groups like blacks.  They hold to anti-assimilationist views where they see universalism or sameness as marginalizing or ignoring differences among people, which reiterates hierarchy.  They don’t see women as a unified grouping/category (for example, black women have differing political concerns compared to those of white middle class women).  While they do critique unity in sameness, they see men as potential political allies for the struggles of women where men and women are seen as becoming similar through political struggle and alliance. 

1 Richard Wolff’s Capitalism Hits the Fan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY
2 Orbach, Susie. Bodies. New York. Picador. 2009.

January 5th 2011
Today my body will be dissected, surgically altered in order to amputate proliferating
polyps confined within my skull.

Infestation.

Anesthesia will burn through my veins.

forced unconsciousness.

We are slumbering away in unconscious space anyways so sleep away my baby.
Forget this world.

My “asthmatic” body will be infiltrated by weapons that treat symptoms,
but never perceive a cause.

CAPITALISM
unlinking its deathly blows from its own symptoms

I AM A PUPPET OF CAPITALISM
sedated by its strings.
Numbing coercion so sweetly silent.

Dorm Construction work. Inescapable silent toxic chemicals pervading my lungs.

Can’t BREATH!! $21,000 Emergency Room now!
 Rx prescription drugs swallowed, snorted, shot up.
Antibiotics, Steroids, they tell me.  Take it, feel better.
Needles. Pinprick holes. Damaged flesh. Anosmia.*
X-Rays.  Pulsing radiation. Cancer.
Doctors prodding inflamed bodily flesh. Weekly.
Advair* triggering Heart Palpitations. Steroidal yeast infections.



Fuck this. No escape.
[Insert Suicidal Thought].

 NO! FIGHT!

. . . but thoughts cling to me saying dont live, be seduced by sweet death, by postmodern meaninglessness.

Desiring Death, an enemy inside forcing its way out.

Russian Roulette. Pull Trigger. Squish!

NO! FIGHT!

Revolution must touch my lips, fingering me deep inside.

I scream, please keep me alive, keep me sane.
Red liquid antidote. Revolution. Hope.
Let’s turn this revolver the other way around this time.

Open my crusty, tear strained eyes. Headache.
Oh sweet baby please open your eyes.
No, open my eyes!

Capitalism is death, and it will always haunt you, call to you, ask for your number, sleep inside you.

We must pull the trigger but this time reverse whos victim.

Together.
united.
Kill that mother fucker.

*Anosmia: The inability to perceive smells
*Advair: a black box drug used to prevent asthma

Original art done by me. 

The Body

 
This outright hatred of so called ‘fatness’ enables an all-out war on the body.

This relentless war demands the complete disconnection of the body and the soul.


At birth these two were one, but, acclimating within a body perfectionist culture forces the soul to vilify the body.

The body, once at peace with the soul, is turned into the enemy being fought.
 
Once the body is twisted into an object of disgust, the soul begins the attempt to control itself by fragmenting into shards.  

This splitting of the soul is unavoidable as control mandates the mind to divide into a ‘me’ that’s being controlled and an ‘I’ that’s doing the controlling.

This leaves the body disconnected from the soul and the soul fragmented in pieces.



We, as human beings, have been fragmented by our culture, left to feel nothing but abhorrence for the body, which merely becomes a vessel holding a ruptured soul of nothingness.
 
This body warfare will always end in devastating losses as it is an endless struggle in a culture that inherently contradicts itself.

Capitalism demands souls to accept a narrow definition of body perfection in order to make souls feel inept and buy more to perfect the body, but Capitalism also necessitates the ceaseless consumption of goods, including the great amount of goods we ingest into the body.







In this Capitalist World-System, the soldiers at war with their bodies 

Will. Never. Stop. Fighting

because peace commands a complete revolution of the system.