VOTE 2.a. A line on clothing styles and the bases of attraction

Under the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations, production of clothing should restrict the style of clothing.

If there is any economic difficulty in the world after the downfall of u.$. imperialism, the restriction of clothing may be from sheer economic necessity in an economy wrecked by global capitalist militarism. It goes without saying MIM is not going to favor having some people have mini-skirts and suits while others have potentially no new clothes at all.

If economic conditions improve relatively- speaking, other questions arise in connection to clothing and makeup. The MIM line on clothing and cosmetics is separate from its line on luxury goods in general, because the question of clothing is tied up with gender oppression. In general, MIM may favor the production of luxury goods to spur the activity of non-communist masses. We will favor continuous measurement of the public's degree of altruism even while we hold the party to minimum altruist standards.

The question of clothing is separate from altruism and MIM favors a less tolerant line on clothing. In capitalist society and within Liberal politics, it is hypocritical to talk about standards of clothing at work or on the street. We stand with the ultra-Liberals on clothing as long as society is capitalist as a matter of consistency. The imposition of work dress codes or Islamic dress codes in a capitalist society or pre-capitalist society only backfires and holds back society.

It is also not a matter of persynal expression that sales staff dress a certain way to promote sales. All such fetishizing of the customer as object to manipulate through unconscious pressures will be done away with under the JDPON. By itself, this will cause the public's tastes in clothing to change gradually over time.

Another question arises, that even if socialist society is unable to produce new clothes of certain styles, should the old clothes of whatever styles be tolerated. It is important to realize that becoming consistent Liberals and individualists on clothing cannot happen until advanced stages of communism. It is not a progressive goal for socialism. The most important underlying reason is patriarchy.

The Liberals state as the selling point for their ideology that people should be able to express themselves "as they want." What is left out is why people want what they do.

It is unmistakable that wimmin spend more time on makeup and clothing than men and this is the pattern of facts that separates a Marxist approach from a Liberal one. MIM does not believe the difference in time spent by wimmin on appearance stems from some female gene for self-decoration. It may appear that way to people only because class society has existed so long and because wimmin have sold their whole outlook to men for so long with varying degrees of coercion over history.

In other words, the fascination with cosmetics and putting together clothing outfits stems from inequality and the difference in men's efforts at appearance and wimmin's is an important inequality in itself. In each day of life, the average womyn starts with a disadvantage in her achievements because of the time she spends on self-decoration.

An important exception worth pondering is the historical arrival of the "metrosexual male." It could be true that as society becomes better-off all people spend more time on self-decoration. On the other hand, metrosexual behavior may also disappear even as a minority countercurrent when hardened 'ho' behavior disappears as a fact of life that men adjust to in various ways.

People in the clutches of the Liberal line will wonder what is wrong if wimmin do want to spend more time, effort and money on self-decoration than men. Obviously this is partly related to why wimmin are segregated out of power. It's not that a persyn wearing cosmetics cannot be president: actually, in something of a self-sales dynamic involving manipulation of the public, the President of the United $tates generally does wear makeup when he goes on TV.

The problem with self-decoration is time and money spent. It is not impossible to wear makeup and have accomplishments, only less likely. We can also state the converse of this when we say that men want wimmin who put in the effort on their looks, because of holdovers of class society that are about to disappear. On average, the pattern was for men to focus on their class advancement while wimmin can focus on life as private entertainers. This ancient pattern of behavior is the 'ho' question. Marriage becomes the hiring of a full-time entertainment provider by men and in that context it becomes difficult to resist the logic of wimmin's focus on clothing and cosmetics. A whole superstructure arises to defend an economic arrangement in the family, an economic arrangement that is collapsing and increasingly less relevant as it becomes apparent that the global economy can support both wimmin and men in productive careers. Reactionaries opposing the MIM line simply do not recognize the trend of history on liberation of wimmin.

The simplest means of bringing about equality is the Mao suit. When everyone wears the same grey or blue suit, there is no time wasted and gender equality improves greatly. Instead of one style and two colors, perhaps wealthy socialist society can afford 20 styles and 10 colors, but the point is that individual distinction should disappear with an eye to evening out the disparity between men and wimmin. This approach will also eliminate the oppression of children where they have school uniforms and many adults have no formal uniforms. (All people have uniforms produced by the mega- corporations of imperialism.)

The subjective resistance to the MIM line is strong at the moment, because of the thousands of years of history backing gender oppression. People on the cusp of change may find it difficult to hear that they have acted like a 'ho.' Men are also doggedly resisting giving up the appearance of "dressed to kill" wimmin under socialism. We have to explain that these were phenomena of a certain historical stage in humyn development.

Female members of the intelligentsia who come up with the political reasons for opposing MIM's line on clothing are the gender bureaucracy. Those females who follow these props of oppression have false consciousness in some Third World cases, but in in the majority-exploiter countries, females opposing the MIM line on clothing and makeup with bullsh*t about just enjoying self-decoration for its own sake are gender aristocracy. They may know in their hearts that they are wrong, but continue anyway in order to gain advantage as individuals over Third World wimmin who are not able to compete in the luxury goods consumption department. The gender aristocracy adopts the male view of the imperialist countries partly as traditional competitive behavior against other females, mostly found in the Third World.

At the very least, and on a preliminary basis, separating from 'ho' life means getting in touch with what is natural and natural does not require thousands of styles of clothing--no clothing at all being natural. Right now, men and wimmin may believe that heterosexual men or socialized men become fired up by heterosexual wimmin or socialized wimmin for biological reasons when in fact unconscious class and national cues are the root of love and even sexual desire. Before men claim that their attraction to wimmin is natural, and hence MIM repressive of nature, men better check to make sure they are talking about pursuit of wimmin regardless of makeup and clothing. Even more destructive to the Liberal view--wimmin better check that they are actually physically attracted to men as much as vice versa before disputing that all wimmin have been 'ho's in class society. Even those wimmin who believe in their strong sexual attraction to men may know that wimmin in general do not have such attractions on average equally with men. MIM is not about perfuming this state of affairs with a defense of some sort of class arrangement attending to exchange between people "who want it" and people who don't. Sex that is not enjoyed for its intrinsic nature as physical activity is 'ho' activity--and that is all sex right now in capitalist society.

Even under socialism, there will continue to be classes and exchanges between men and wimmin will occur against political power, not necessarily money or home lifestyle. Even attraction to a persyn's "political line" should be equated with past abuses by spiritual gurus exchanging enlightenment for sex from naive wimmin. The whole idea of a political line is absolutely necessary now but it is still derivative of power and will disappear under advanced stages of communism. If we were to forget this, we would forget the goal of communism. If sex has a communist future at all, it is as a mutually enjoyable physical interaction, not for money and not as a reward for honorable behavior.

Since classes will continue to exist and a state will continue to exist long into the future, we can say that all sex is rape to address the specific problems of socialism. In other words, after the most obvious commercial exchanges between men and wimmin are gone under socialist society, power and derivatives of power will continue to condition the behaviors of wimmin and men in their interactions. For now, the question of clothing is closely tied up with capitalism and the 'ho' question.

The willingness to stand up against Liberal ridicule on the question of clothing is just another measure of a party member, whether s/he is going to blow in the wind or whether the party member deserves to be in what is called a vanguard party, which is not for no reason an organization of leaders. Party leaders have the gonads to tell people that relations between men and wimmin were organized rape so far in history for reasons that are now disappearing. After men and wimmin achieve equality, we can wonder how humyns relate to self- decoration in a consistent manner.

Amendment: In addition to restricting the production of new clothes, the party will lead the way, once it has state power, by imposing progressive standards of dress on its members.

Amendment: Gender-oppressive clothing may be restricted or banned. High heels are a good example. Although not exactly the Western equivalent of foot-binding (a barbaric oppressive practice eliminated by the Chinese comrades very shortly after Liberation), they do damage the body to the point that some wimmin who have worn them for years can no longer walk in flat shoes. Humyn health and the liberation of wimmin will take precedence over fashion.