Communism, Feminism and The Rise of Rational Movements

Introduction

Gender and class are two of the most fundamental qualities of human nature. In the modern world, movements have emerged accusing them to be oppressive and irrational, yet we are irrational creatures who are driven by these factors at the most fundamental level. So let us begin by examining the scientific distinction between men and women. At the most fundamental level, women are distinct from men in that it is only they who can get pregnant, and give birth to children. This is essential to recognise as all other distinctions of man and women arise from this. Beginning in pregnancy, women experience significant vulnerability for approximately two years, during which they give birth and care for a highly dependent baby, typically for the first 18 months or so. As a result of this, their child must have a competent father who can provide sufficient security and sustenance for her. It is this demand of the father that clearly explains the effects of testosterone (the male hormone), where men will experience higher levels of aggression and competitiveness. This is further enabled by the greater muscle mass and pain recovery rates of men, allowing them to fulfill their roles as hunters, builders and fighters. In essence, (historically speaking) men work (as hunters, builders, fighters, etc) in competition to secure the pick of the female, thus securing the survival of their genetic line as well as social status.

From here we can also observe the evident rise of class in human society and behaviour. It is first essential to recall that, in the primitive and tribal lens through which we are initially looking, class was exclusive to men (as women would instead compete through beauty, youth, and indirect aggression). In tribal societies, it was the men who showed the greatest prowess, both in terms of physical strength and leadership, in hunting and tribal war. As our societies advanced and we developed economies, success in war remained a key component of social status and class, while the importance of hunting was generally replaced by accumulation of money – which allowed one to obtain attractive resources. All of this was primarily, although (as we furthered civilisation) less exclusively, existing within the patriarchy, thus indicating the historically defined roles of gender.

The Rise of Feminism and Transgenderism

In our initial discussion, gender roles have been clearly defined and competitive pursuits in the realm of class were exclusive to men. Why? Because we were existing in nature, where survival demanded such clarity. Yet as our society has become richer and more technologically capable, we have become isolated from nature and able to involve ourselves in human affairs. This led to the emergence of movements conceived out rational reflections, much of which was (initially) well-intended. One of the early examples of this was the recognition of the “oppressive patriarchy” which began to receive resistance in the light of democratic movements. Thus, many fought for women to receive the same rights of men in terms of voting, employment, land ownership, and others like these. This succeeded, and for good reason, now allowing women (around 50%) to have a similar level of participation in society to men. Nevertheless, this was not enough, and the feminist movement continued, soon proposing that women shouldn’t have to be wives and mothers, and proposing that they should lead the same lifestyles of men.

Of course, this is an enormous problem, as women are mothers – it is their one primary role. It is absurd to propose that women, in the modern world, be only mothers, but it is equally absurd to propose that they should work and compete to the same extent as men. We need mothers. Why? Well, clearly we need children if we are to not go extinct. Yet they are also vital for the family unit, which provides both meaning and direction for the parents and the children (albeit in different ways). Regardless, as can be seen in the graphs below, more and more children are moving away from getting married and having children – the whole world over.

Fertility rate: births per woman, 2023 - Our World in Data

Marriages and Divorces - Our World in Data

This is what feminism has turned into, yet the next stage in the rational movement is even more extreme, and potentially more dangerous. The next stage is the rise of transgenderism. It has recently been decided by many that gender really has no importance. Supposedly we are these rational creatures who are gods, by the standards of nature, and should be able to be as fluid as they want with their gender. No, that is absurdly far from the truth. In reality, we are nothing but intelligent monkeys. Intelligence is a ridiculously influential factor, yet it is nonetheless the only real distinction – and it does not, by any means, triumph over gender (and everything else that gender entails, as we’ve previously discussed). There is really no irrefutable test to prove if you are trapped in the wrong body – instead it is subjective and people are being encouraged to play with their gender as they would with their hairstyle (an exaggeration, but more and more so it is becoming stylistic). Unfortunately, political correctness mixed with the addition of “T+” to “LGB” has led to a destructive acceptance of the circumstances. Gender is very different to sexuality, and recognising whether or not you’re gay is straightforward and harmless. We will shift back to this later but, currently, it is necessary to investigate the distinct, albeit related, rise of communism.

Communism

In 1848, Karl Marx published the communist manifesto, kickstarting the communist movement that was soon to take over Eastern Europe as well as other countries such as China and Cuba – both of which are still ruled by “communist parties” today (although China is actually state capitalist and Cuba is socialist). The initial proposal of communism was a classless society where the proletariat would rise up to take control of the means of production. Marx identified the bourgeois (the owners) and the proletariat (the workers), and proposed communism as the solution to this problem. In his idealist system, class would be utterly abolished by full collective ownership and a planned economy without any privatisation at all. Yet Marx, and his subsequent followers, failed to see how this conflicted with the inherent flaws of classlessness and collective ownership.

As children, we instinctively resist sharing, yet, as we mature and become more socialised, we recognise the need to share if we are to form social bonds and ensure cooperation – indeed this is really driven by self-interest. This tendency clearly represents the fundamental flaws of communism. People share only when it benefits them, yet under communism, shared ownership offers no individual advantage, and thus there is no reason to practice it beyond conformity. This then leads to a deeper issue, in that without class, and the advantages that come with being in the upper classes, there is minimal motivation for progress. Beyond ensuring survival – a competition with the ruthlessness of nature – there is no drive for progress. Ultimately, communism, in its pure form, clearly results in a stagnated and resentful society, not something we should be shooting for.

Overall, this represents the intrinsic defect of these rational movements. They fail to address what fundamentally drives us at the individual level, and thus how this reflects on society as a whole. We prefer to see ourselves as these rational and self-determining creatures who really want to do what is compassionate and morally good. That’s not true. Not at all. If we were, we already would be organised in a rational, genderless, communist society. Yet we would also be arranged in a robotic society of complete order – existing with no spontaneity, emotion or meaning. We wouldn't be human. So is that what we really want?

How do you see it? Comment your take👇

If you're interested in reading more about these issues, check out the articles below:

• The Infiltration of Woke Communism

• Human Enhancement Ethics: The Risks of Transhumanism and Emerging Cultural Trends