Well, the issue I have with anyone being Marxist, or anticaptialist in general. In the case of Marxists they are, and in the case of anticapitalists they tend to be, advancing a horrid ideology which tends toward authoritarianism, is decidedly illiberal, and is a recipe for disaster.Śiva wrote:I'd like to know what your issue is with many feminists being anti-capitalist.. or "Marxist".
One, "from each according to ability to give and to each according to his need." A basic pillar of Marxism, and a recipe for oppression and slavery. It destroys the voluntariness - the volition - of the individual when the State or the community gets to direct what "each" has the "ability" to give. They aren't saying "from each according to his wants" or "from each according to his willingness to give or do" -- no no. It is intended to be and as applied is a directive that individuals do what the community or the state says they ought to do. And, "to each according to need" eliminates the volition of the individual in terms of pursuit of happiness. You don't get what you want, or what you can work to acquire. You get what you "need" and ONLY what you need. It doesn't say "a bare minimum safety net to protect the poor if they need assistance." No. it says "to each" according to their need. It's not "to each according to their need, and then everyone can pursue more than than their needs if they see fit to do so." Marx could have added that if he wanted to, but he didn't. Because it's not what's intended.
Two, Marxism leads to an authoritarian state. A socialist state by its very nature erodes the rights of its citizens. The American economist Milton Friedman argued that under socialism, the absence of a free market economy would inevitably lead to an authoritarian political regime. Friedman's view was also shared by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who both believed that capitalism is a precondition for freedom to flourish in a nation state. Note, Keynes, of Keynesian economics fame, also agreed that capitalism is a precondition for freedom to flourish in a nation state. Capitalism is freedom. Similarly, Mikhail Bakunin showed that Marxist regimes would lead to the "despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy."
Three, Marxist economics is absurd, and its "labor theory" of value is simply wrong, and discounts the contribution of capital and other sources, and it discounts or ignores the role of demand in economics, relying almost entirely on supply. The absurdity of labor being the source of all value and the reality that the subjective individual evaluations 'creating' all value destroys Marx's economic conclusions and his social theories. Keynes - again of the Keynesian school of economics -- referred to Das Kapital as "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world" - so, the whole economic underpinning of Marxism is bollocks.
Four, the notion of Marxist feminism with women being an oppressed class, like the proletariat, is absurd, because women come in all economic classes, and the idea that women are, qua women, an oppressed, marginalized group is a fiction.