The true test of one’s political beliefs about equality for women is how one actually lives everyday in the little nest, socialist or otherwise, and how one treats the little women (wives, “partners-in-life,” daughters, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, etc) at home when no one is watching. One can erect monuments to token commie females and once a year make a hypocritical fuss but no one is fooling the little women at home that they are being celebrated when the drunks come home after toasting Klara demanding dinner and refusing to wash their own dirty dishes.
More real equality and less pretend-socialist fantasy.
It’s not about monuments to Clara. It’s about the whole idea of equality is rooted in Marxism. ;)
By the way, I do not think it’s fair to say that only women are being mistreated. How many men are being mistreated every day by their spouses, mothers, sisters?
Aleks writes, “It’s about the whole idea of equality is rooted in Marxism. ;)” Marx lived a privileged, bourgeois, male-chauvinist life. Those are pretty rotten roots. No wonder by his fine personal example people are still talking about what Marx wrote and living just like he did. :)
Marx lived a privileged, bourgeois, male-chauvinist life.
Funny. I thought Marx died poor without a country in London.
Karl Marx married Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron, on June 19, 1843 in the Pauluskirche, at Bad Kreuznach. Marx and Jenny had seven children, but due to poverty, only three survived to adulthood.[10] Marx’s major source of income was from the support of Friedrich Engels, who was drawing a steadily increasing income from the family business in Manchester. This was supplemented by weekly articles written as a foreign correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune.[11] Inheritances from one of Jenny’s uncles and her mother who died in 1856 allowed the family to move to somewhat more salubrious lodgings at 9 Grafton Terrace, Kentish Town a new suburb on the then-outskirts of London. Marx generally lived a hand-to-mouth existence, forever at the limits of his resources, although this did to some extent depend upon his spending on relatively bourgeois luxuries, which he felt were necessities for his wife and children given their social status and the mores of the time.
...
Following the death of his wife Jenny in December 1881, Marx developed a catarrh that kept him in ill health for the last 15 months of his life. It eventually brought on the bronchitis and pleurisy that killed him in London on March 14, 1883. He died a stateless person;[13] family and friends in London buried his body in Highgate Cemetery, London, on March 17, 1883.
You didn’t study Marx per chance, ambersun? But the point is not Marx himself.
Are you trying to suggest that Marx was too good for honest work in the factory, unlike his beloved masses that he wanted to stick in unhealthy factories, but, instead, had no choice but to be a parasite off Engels, the bourgeois friend whose bourgeois money paid for Marx’s self-indulgence? “Marx’s major source of income was from the support of Friedrich Engels, who was drawing a steadily increasing income from the family business in Manchester.”
“Marx generally lived a hand-to-mouth existence, forever at the limits of his resources, although this did to some extent depend upon his spending on relatively bourgeois luxuries, which he felt were necessities for his wife and children given their social status and the mores of the time.”
Too bad there was a “bourgeois” friend in Engels, an “inheritance,” “family business,” etc. to keep Marx going since we all would have been better off had Marx stopped writing and just worked a steady job in the factory so his wife and all the kids (he couldn’t support but had anyway) wouldn’t have had to live hand-to-mouth and the world wouldn’t have been plagued by the Soviet Union. etc. What is “revolutionary” in needing one’s “bourgeois luxuries” to keep up with one’s privileged “social status” without earning your own dime?
It’s obvious you did not study Marx, and it’s obvious someone has pulled the wool over your eyes. Marx’s lifestyle is the example of living like a hypocrite. There are no poor Communist heads of state because, just like Marx. they also want those “bourgeois luxuries.” Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong II, etc. It’s like “the elite Left” in Latvia being “Marx-inspired” to also need “bourgeois luxuries” for their “social status.” Take another look at the watches.
Are you trying to suggest that Marx was too good for honest work in the factory, unlike his beloved masses that he wanted to stick in unhealthy factories, but instead had no choice but to be a parasite off Engels, the bourgeois friend whose bourgeois money paid for Marx’s self-indulgence?
Elite is an elite. Does one have to work at a factory to observe the conditions of the working people? Does one have to take out a loan at a Swedish bank in Latvia to know what it’s like to suffer under the yoke of bank managers? Certainly not.
One can make another emphasis:
“Marx generally lived a hand-to-mouth existence, forever at the limits of his resources, although this did to some extent depend upon his spending on relatively bourgeois luxuries, which he felt were necessities for his wife and children given their social status and the mores of the time.”
Like I said, it’s not about Marx. It is about his philosophy. And how his philosophy eventually gave way to the International Women’s Day, thanks to Klara Zetkin.
Incidentally, does the capitalist America celebrate the International Women’s day?