The Communist Daily

The revolution starts here!

Sexism is Anti-Communist

I stumbled across an article on a misogynistic blog called “The Spearhead”; wherein an article proclaimed that feminism is of Marxist origin. While this is a false claim, as easily evidenced by feminist movements before Marx or Lenin ever lived; he goes on to draw parallels between Marxist ideas on socio-economics and social problems of sexist or patriarchal oppression. I am going to present the whole ridiculous argument here, and debunk, dissect a

My responses are in this bold font.

Feminists as Bolsheviks


by DAVD on SEPTEMBER 28, 2011

Can a good look at Leninism and Stalinism help us improve on “Feminazi”?

 Feminists as Bolsheviks


Davd Martin,

September 2011


Feminism began (a rather unfriendly Feminist told me 30-40 years ago in Thunder Bay, Ontario) with a “Marxist class-analysis of gender relations”. Feminists, she said, viewed men as a bourgeoisie and women as a proletariat. I don’t recall her going on to assert “the dictatorship of the proletariat” as the Bolsheviks did, but it may have occurred to her. Other things she said indicated that she considered me—and men in general—unworthy of equality with her gender.

She didn’t know what she was talking about, he is not recalling the conversation correctly, or he’s a liar. (I suspect the last option) Marxism does not make a distinction between “this proletariat” and “that proletariat. The proletariat is very simply those who, not owning the means of production must sell their labor. It makes absolutely no sense in this context.

Marx foresaw the bourgeoisie shrinking (through financial competition) to a tiny minority, too small to hold power over a huge proletariat (which huge proletariat then took over.) In fact, the first “communist” government took power in Russia, where (SIC)  at the time there were: A small pre-industrial ruling class, a smaller, separate bourgeoisie, a rather small proletariat, and a peasant majority… which history that Thunder Bay Feminist knew, or ought to have known.

This is beginning to sound a lot like an anecdotal strawman argument.

The Russian Marxist-Leninists who took power were known as the Bolsheviks—a word meaning, approximately, “the majority party”. They claimed that name based on winning one particular vote; and they were skillful enough at propaganda that they managed to make Bolshevik their name. Two parallels with Feminism can be argued: Women do outnumber men [though not on as fluctuating a basis as votes in an assembly], and Feminists have been deadly skillful at propaganda and politicking. Trey Pennington and Tom Ball are two of their better-known victims.

Women do not outnumber men in a number of countries. Again, calling them a “proletariat” is moronic. Are women an oppressed segment of society? Yes. A “proletariat”? No.

“The dictatorship of the proletariat” in Russia and “her satellites” turned out to be a dictatorship of the bureaucracy (Djilas, 1957; Komarov, 1980). The average Soviet or Yugoslav proletarian probably was better off under [bureaucracy wearing the name of “communism”] than a pre-Soviet, Russian serf; and maybe as well off as a pre-Soviet, Russian peasant with enough land to feed his family but too little to think of having serfs of his own1. The bureaucrats lived and dictated, not as a proletariat but as a ruling class.

I have no idea what the preceding paragraph has to do with feminism at all, besides the inept author’s wish to hammer away at the USSR. 

This is a blog and not a book, so the details of the analogy between Feminism and Bolshevism are too many “to go over”. It does seem “obvious” to me, that Feminism rules through political intrigue and a bureaucracy which is more a ruling class than a representative of the population. It distorts facts in a manner reminiscent of Soviet-bloc “intellectualism” and government prose: This site and other men’s sites have seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of refutations of Feminist-promulgated invalid statistics, especially as to wage levels and gender violence. Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Djilas himself, were treated not that differently from how men are treated who challenge Feminism today. Marx may or not be amazed at how his vision has been warped; I am more than 90% sure he is disgusted—and i’m not even an admirer.

I don’t even believe Marx, from his house-arrest somewhere between Purgatory2 and Heaven, really approved of Lenin. (Nor do I believe Jesus approved of the Inquisition and the sack of Constantinople—bureaucracy is, my best guess anyway, inherently inclined toward evil. Distance bureaucracy from public control and you invite worse than mere “trouble”.)

“Too many to go over” he says. He has hardly made any comparisons at all.

There are important flaws in the analogy. Marx’s notion of the bourgeoisie shrinking though competition


that evicts bourgeois “losers” into the proletariat, doesn’t work with biological gender3.

Women do constitute a majority of the adult population in many modern States, thanks largely to medical advances that have made death in childbirth and lactation, extremely rare. Men contributed immensely to those advances, and applauded them—we have been friendly to women most of the time, and with very few exceptions, we have been unfriendly only with good cause. A Bolshevik bourgeoisie is not so friendly to the proletariat… nor so nearly as large.

Obviously he continues this ridiculous anecdotal strawman. Notice also how women owe everything to men and every advance of science is mostly due to men, and men have hardly ever hurt women.

Those flaws must not be crucial, because the parallels are disquieting. Having beaten the Soviet system in the economic “cold war”, the West finds itself today, arguably “more Soviet than the Russians”—subject to a bureaucratic ruling class that shamelessly misuses “gender equality” as Soviet bureaucrats and propagandists once misused “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”4 What must the old “anti-Communists” be thinking? Some of the old “communists”, such as Djilas, Komarov, and Solzhenitsyn, warned us, not about Feminism perhaps, but definitely about bureaucracy.

The West is more Soviet than the Russians? Really? Just because Western liberal democracies are trying to gain gender equality they are Soviets? Really? Oh, and Solzhenitsyn was hardly a communist.

In the “Soviet bloc”, those who had Party membership were privileged, and those who had important Party offices and connections were very privileged. There isn’t a major Feminist Party—at least, not yet—in Canada or the US; but there are elite networks within Feminism who get more of the benefits than ordinary women get, and who (one might infer from horror stories including Tom Ball, Timothy Emerson, and Vladek Filler) persecute enemies (the Soviet officials once sent theirs to Siberia.)

Bolshevism fell. Russia may not be a perfect democracy today—but neither is Canada or the USA. (Switzerland may well be the nearest thing to a perfect democracy among “nation-states”, and Finland seems to do better than North America.) If we take notice of the substantial analogy between oppressive Bolshevism 25-75 years ago, and oppressive Feminism today, we might learn some useful ways to restore the democracy and freedom which Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the rest, had in mind (as had the men of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, as had Gabriel Dumont and Louis Riel).

At the least, i believe the analogy gives a valuable warning, and a valuable guide to attitude for us men.

So trying to undo centuries of oppression against women, in which women didn’t have property rights, civil rights, political rights or even respect is anti-American. Equality of the sexes is not the abolition of man hood. Is it the abolition of men treating women like shit? Yes, it is. Is feminism misandry? NO. This ignorant moron would have you believe that feminism is a ridiculous plot to eliminate all men off the planet, and have a world run entirely by women. He wants you to believe that men are really the oppressed. What a load of hogwash. He’s right about one thing though. Communists do realize that women are an oppressed demographic, and we do seek their liberation. The USSR did not kill off all the men after the revolution, but women did gain way more freedom than under the Czars. Final note for this post: Don’t write about history you’re obviously completely ignorant about; and don’t think you can write a whole argumentative article on a subject based upon nothing more than an anecdotal story. See you next time comrades. 



Single Post Navigation

Join the debate!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: