Although it implicitly suggests non-capitalist society won't have the sexist differentiation of labour, I think the article could do more to show how pluralist and mixed-economies vary here. It's pretty clear the scandi nations have a different experience to the British, or Australian. Not perfect, but different.
A lot of socialist countries have increadibly strong sexist bias in the workforce, and marginalise women. Magnifying the value of manual labour, emphasising "working class" supremacy does that. It is not uncommon for women to work in medicine in the FSU, but they were placed in a lower class than heroic male surgeons often.
So while I think they make a good point about how capitalism comes with innate bias, they do less well arguing about the alternative.
I found the suggestion that the left should seek to leverage differences inside right wing extremist support interesting. They are right that the US working classes are not glued to trump automatically but it will be a long, slow, hard road to drive a wedge there.
> Have you asked yourself why women choose different careers?
idk, have you ? It certainly is much more complex than "they chose because freedom and liberty", because that's ignoring 99% of the social game we all play
It places value on individual choice over uniform statistics. It may be that this choice is actually coerced in some way, but that is for us to prove. We cannot simply draw a line from statistical disparity to coercion
Women choose less school over more school because most want to have babies at some point in their lives and 10 to 15 years of medical school doesn't lend itself. I thought that much was clear.
Verses socialism, which is always one crisis away from starving tens of millions of people to death ...except, of course, the socialist leadership, who are always fat and happy off the backs of "workers."
Verses Marxism, which divides people instead of bringing them together, and eventually devolves into show trials and public executions for wrong-think.
Give me liberty or give me death. You will find lots of the former in capitalism, and less in the latter.
The leftist fools' utopian wet dream is to change capitalist countries. Why not just move to any one of the utopian countries, like China? Why try to screw up this country with Marx's shitty ideas, too?
The only thing your post has convinced me of is that you don't know what socialism is. If you can't name a single socialist country that isn't a dictatorship, that makes me think you aren't aware that they exist. And if you aren't aware that socialism is not equivalent to dictatorship, you aren't equipped to participate in this conversation.
> Give me liberty or give me death. You will find lots of the former in capitalism, and less in the latter.
It's a quintessentially capitalist thing to think that "___ or death" is an expression of freedom. The US is a country where diabetics are "free" to choose between working jobs that provide health insurance so they can barely afford insulin, or literally dying. I personally think being unable to quit your job isn't liberty, but I guess if you see dying as a viable option, that is technically a free choice. 1 point for capitalism, I guess.
> The leftist fools' utopian wet dream is to change capitalist countries. Why not just move to any one of the utopian countries, like China?
This is a straw man argument. I'm sure you can find some leftists who think of China as a utopia, but the vast majority of leftists, at least in the US, are anti-dictatorship. Personally, if you'd like to engage with an actual leftist instead of your fantasy caricature of a leftist, I'd be happy to present Norway or Denmark as places that are closer to my ideal utopia (while still not perfect).
As for your childish "love it or leave it" argument, the reason I'd like to live in the US instead of Norway or Denmark is that my family lives here. My sister just had a baby and I'd like to help raise my niece as well as help my parents navigate their later years.
If I ever have kids of my own, I may actually move to Europe, because then giving my children access to education and medical care without becoming a slave to debt becomes a higher priority.
Every Jacobin article sounds the same. They could do an article on the Diffie–Hellman key exchange and somehow still make it about the alleged failures of capitalism. Unfortunately, nothing to be engaged with
Mea culpa. Perhaps I was too harsh on them. Maybe they do have point with deeply insightful hot takes like
1. Graphic Novels Are Comic Books, But Gentrified
2. The [incel] documentary TFW No GF also emphasizes that, in part, that subculture is a product of the breakdown of institutions, the disappearance of decent economic opportunities, and a broader loss of meaning in America.
3. Capitalism is bad at sex because it's bad at relationships. Socialism can do better
4. The scenes of thousands of East Germans passing through the Berlin Wall crossing on November 9, 1989 are remembered as the end of the Cold War. But just days earlier, a million had demonstrated for reform — and they wanted to create a democratic socialism.
And of course the best of them all
5. Bernie Sanders Should Run for President a Third Time
fully agree demsocs are obnoxious and in turn friendly to fascism, i’ ll move onto sharing more anarchist oriented material if i can find better sources for it
A lot of socialist countries have increadibly strong sexist bias in the workforce, and marginalise women. Magnifying the value of manual labour, emphasising "working class" supremacy does that. It is not uncommon for women to work in medicine in the FSU, but they were placed in a lower class than heroic male surgeons often.
So while I think they make a good point about how capitalism comes with innate bias, they do less well arguing about the alternative.
I found the suggestion that the left should seek to leverage differences inside right wing extremist support interesting. They are right that the US working classes are not glued to trump automatically but it will be a long, slow, hard road to drive a wedge there.