Some writings of mine in regards to anarcha-tranfeminism

[keavy]

A Correlation Between Economic and Social Freedom
Economic freedom comes through social freedom, and social freedom through economic freedom. Nothing short of that will do, and anything short of it will always lead to hierarchical social structures. The bourgeois social, familial and economic structures are all a part of a larger patriarchal (and therefore transphobic) machine of oppression. As such, the bourgeois economic structure is in large a transphobic one. So, the only way to properly combat transmisogyny is the dismantling of the bourgeois structures that bind us.
In fact, capital itself is a transphobic and misogynistic entity by nature. As the human form has been degraded to a source of economic prosperity, through what is social commanded as beautiful. The human body is no longer simply exploited for its ability to produce goods and services, but for how it appears, and what is aesthetically pleasing. Aestheticism as well is a bourgeois structure; that which is not pleasing enough to the senses is cast away like a wormy apple. Therefore, the only economic freedom that can create social freedom in its wake is the complete abolition of capital as a whole. Capital is inherently the cause of many hierarchical structures. As well, the bourgeois social, familial and economic model has been deemed as something of an aesthetically pleasing model, thus further proving the bourgeois root of aestheticism. The aesthetics of the bourgeois model are marketed to us as something to strive for, a so-called “American Dream”. More so, it is a carrot on a stick, in which the stick seems to only grow longer whenever we appear ahead.
Economic and social freedom must come at the same time. Each fight is proven to be for the same end. If one is fighting for one and not the other, they are no ally of ours. They are simply a means to further the goals of our oppressors. That is to say, one without the other will lead to inequality. Social issue are not only as important as economic ones, they are basically the same thing.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Transgender Issues: The State, Media and Capital


By: Jessalyn Lenore Nelson
I. Wage Slavery and Media Representation
There are those who would argue that the current state of the transgender individual is improving rapidly. When someone looks at famous people like Laverne Cox, and the positive representation she has brought to mainstream media, it might even seem like that is absolutely true. More and more you are hearing about transgender people in the media, with a far less critical standpoint from cisgender people. This would appear to actually be taking a turn for the best, for once. This illusion is created though the apparent acceptance of transgender people in media; if you are being represented in media, then your rights must be increasing. However, media representation is nothing more than a capitalistic ploy; proper representation of LGBT people in television is good for ratings, good rating produces more capital. If it was not profitable, there would be no representation.
So, while representation in media may appear as a positive it is not quit a positive as one may think. LGBT people are being marginalized into stereotypes that fit the mindset of the patriarchal rule of the broadcasting companies, in such way as to commodititize an entire group of people. This is a different form of capitalist slavery, in which we are given the illusion of representation in exchange for our viewing of these programs, thus generating capital for the different television stations. Media representation is more repressive than it is uplifting, because the lives of people are being serialized into something to be bought and sold; slavery by any other name.
By turning a profit from representing transgender and other LGBT people in media the broadcasting companies are taking advantage of us. Representation in the name of capitalism is nothing more than wage slavery with a pretty little bow on top. We watch their shows, they make money off from us and then we are captives in their LGBT slave trade of representation. However, it is not as if we are not doing this willingly. We are more than happy to blindly support anyone who properly represents any part of the LGBTQIA (in which the A is representing the asexual spectrum) community. We are trading ourselves off into an entirely different form a wage slavery than the manager versus the worker; this is producer versus consumer, in which we help produce just so we can consume. We are enslaving ourselves to ourselves in this case, we represent both to consumer and the producer. We allow our lives and lifestyles to be turned into a commodity, just so we can enjoy a few hours of television at our own expense, that is only succeeding in bringing capital to the broadcasters. This becomes merchant versus the producer as a consumer, in which the merchant is the broadcaster, and the producer as the consumer is the entire LGBTQIA community as a whole.The producer as a consumer is the entire LGBTQIA community, in that they indulge in their representation in the media, because it is their lives that are being represented, so they are therefore the producers. The are consuming their own productions in a form a wage slavery in which they produce for nothing by simply existing, and then consume what has been produced from their existence. The merchant represents the broadcaster, taking the production of the consumer and selling it back to them. So, their life experiences and styles are being stolen from them, appropriated even, and then sold back to them.

I-1. Representation is Slavery
When an entire community of people and their lives/lifestyles are being commoditized and sold it is no different from slavery. They are being controlled as the means of production. Whenever another human being is being used the means of production controlled by anyone else, this is slavery. If a profit is ever made unwillingly off the backs of another this is slavery. Not simply wage slavery, but actual slavery.

[keavy]

Why Voting and Bourgeois Aestheticism Are Counter-Revolutionary, and How To Properly Deal With Them.

For so long we have viewed voting as a means to an end of the capitalist oppression we live under. One might think that we can simply vote our problems away, or that we will be better off voting in to office someone we believe represents our ideals, our goals. These people are not our comrades though; they are but hopeless dreamers and opportunists, whom look towards electoral offices as a means to "change things from the inside", as is far too often said. These people are the Petty Bourgeois, the idealists, yuppies, and those who look towards revolution only in an aesthetic view. History will show, anyone elected to an office will surely relinquish their revolutionary goals when they realize the comfort they receive in being an elected official. As such, those who vote and throw themselves foolishly at their opportunist leaders (the camp-followers and social chauvinists), become comfortable with the "reformed" system, and they too will throw away their revolutionary goals. They, the proletariat, will side with the opportunist Petty Bourgeois, because they offer them false comforts, while still enslaving them.

The poor souls will not even know they are slaves, for they will be too comfortable. The mixed economies, market socialism and liberal reforms are but superficial changes to a system that will always fail. However, it cannot fail if we keep propping it up on our shoulder, and carrying the burden of our capitalist rulers. We must allow it to fall, whatever the consequence may be. We would be much better off to support the laissez-faire capitalist approach, as it has been proven to always fail; much as was proven after the presidencies of Harding - Hoover. Capitalism is destined to collapse in on itself, and we would be much better off just letting it. However, upon the inevitable crash, we must do everything in our power to smash the opportunist Petty Bourgeois in trying to implement their reforms (as they surely will). We absolutely cannot allow them the chance to draw even a single breath of idealistic jargon. A preemptive attack must be placed first on them, and then the Bourgeois.

The Petty Bourgeois will surely always appeal to the masses, as they are aesthetically pleasing to listen to. Their aesthetics must be squashed at first sight. Propagandized to show just how unfavorable their so-called reforms actually are. Aestheticism in itself is a dangerous entity. It will give a false hope through vocal, written or visual beauty; it is a romantic principle, and it is counter-revolutionary, and therefore must also be suppressed. This is of course speaking of the aestheticism of Bourgeois society and ideas, the "American dream" that capitalism promises, and lies, about. Revolutionary, socialist, libertarian aestheticism must be encourages whenever possible.

More so on the anti-aestheticism that must take place in the revolution; but firstly, a quote from Fidel Castro, "A revolution is not a trail of roses.… A revolution is a fight to the death between the future and the past". That being said, counter-revolutionaries must be dealt with. There will be enough fighting going on, as their will have to be some form of armed conflict, to not need to have to worry about such things. They must be dealt with immediately and swiftly. We must have a cool head, a warm heart and clean hands in dealing with this. Those who would join us will be welcomed with open arms, but must be watched carefully. They are not to be trusted, and at the first sight of untrustworthy, counter-revolutionary or treasonous acts, they must be dealt with as if they were any other Bourgeois.

"We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea." — Felix Dzerzhinsky.

This may seem extreme, and if it does than it has done its job. This is an extreme measure, and so it must be dealt with in terms of extremism. We must be ruthless, but not lose our sense of compassion and empathy. In dealing with Bourgeois and counter-revolutionaries we must understand that they would surely act in the same manner if in our shoes.