Theory Thursday #1

Originally my Theory Thursday #1 post included a very lengthy (and at times, wandering) analysis of Hal Draper's and Anne Lipow's introduction for a collection of texts they title "Marxist Women vs. Bourgeois Feminism" (1976). In the course of writing this post, I also had the chance to run several items in it by comrades within and without Marxist circles at the same time. A lot of arguments were put forth that I had to think about and a lot of concerns that developed because of it. So I am changing tactics. I would still like to draw on Draper/Lipow, especially considering their discussion includes works of such seminal Marxist Feminists as Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Eleanor Marx (the full introduction and list is here), but it is more important now to simply address the question of Marxist Feminism in general. Why have I reasoned this?

My original post blatantly and routinely attacked core problems in Liberal Feminism perceived as parallels addressed in attacks by Zetkin, et. al. in the 1880's in Germany. Why is this a problem? What would you think would be the response of any woman who is conscious of her feminism to a man telling her why Liberal Feminism is wrong? It would appear to be the same idea as any man or men trying to co-opt feminism for their own ends and telling women why they should let men co-opt it. So, even without publishing that first draft, I would like to extend an apology to all women, feminist or not, that my original intention was blind to what would be termed my male privilege. I am sorry that my intention would have offended you. Let me instead try and present arguments by Marxist Feminists that will be there for your consideration, and maybe we can talk about it over coffee some time. I like coffee.

ONWARD!

I would like to begin with a clip illustrating some quotes from Clara Zetkin, who founded a socialist women's group in Germany in 1872:

The core of Zetkin's feminism is the same as Marxist Feminism in general. The plight of women and their subsequent lack of equality is inherently the byproduct of the relations of production. When men solely provided for their families, women were subordinate. When industrialization required men and women to work side-by-side, Zetkin argued that women's economic emancipation was complete, and much of this was done without the aide of men and often in opposition to men. But once women's economic emancipation was complete, it was imperative for men and women to work together. For Draper/Lipow, it is summed up rather coherently:

"In the Marxist perspective, the entrance of women into industry was not itself the solution; it merely posed the right questions for solution. It provided the necessary starting-point for struggle. The struggle had to include a fight against the abuses of female labour along with other workingclass struggles. Once one saw the female half of the human race as an integral part of the great social struggle, everything else followed. [The] Marxists' approach pointed...to the integration of women into every aspect of the social struggle, including the political."

This is the most succinct discussion of Marxist Feminism that I have come across. Women and men do not stand in opposition (or should not, at any rate), and should be fully integrated in every aspect of the social struggle. Going back to Zetkin, this denies a focus on women's roles and rights in a purely juridical sense and explains Zetkin's, Marx's, and Luxemburg's open hostility towards "Bourgeois Feminism" (what we would call Liberal Feminism, today), which sought and continues to seek an active legislative solution--something Marxist Feminism denies as being effective.

The alternative to focusing on the status of women in a purely juridical sense is focusing on the status of women in a revolutionary sense. It is not enough to take the present system, says the Marxist Feminist, and enact laws and reforms that protect women from the internal machinations of Capitalist society that seek to undermine the emancipation of women. It is necessary to force the capitulation of Capitalism so that Socialism can replace it to guarantee the emancipation of women in a classless society, since their subordination stems directly from economic exploitation and class antagonism. The logic here is that juridical reforms can be taken away, whereas a truly revolutionary social shift cannot be so easily undone.

As an illustration of this thinking at work, one can praise the hundred plus years of feminist gains in the United States. But if a juridical approach was sufficient to changing culture, the Republican War on Women should be spearheaded by men who came of age during, before, or shortly after Roe v. Wade, or those men who spearheaded the offensive that helped derail and ultimately defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. But it isn't. The War on Women is being led by the youngest members in the Republican caucus. It is being headed by the likes of Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. Yes, men like Todd Akin and Rush Limbaugh have come out as openly misogynistic, but all they do is add "tradition" and "moral support" to the young blood leading the charge. The past couple of years, reproductive rights restrictions in the United States have outstripped the restrictions passed in the past several decades combined. In this instance, at the very least, Marxist Feminism says the juridical focus is misapplied and is not working.

So what is the solution? Over the next few weeks I will be discussing the list of works in Draper/Lipow's "Marxist Women vs. Bourgeois Feminism". While much of this work lies in the canon of Marxist Feminist theory as having built the foundation of the theory 130 years ago, I posit that its age is not an issue since the problems they address are still problems today. To understand Feminism, one needs to understand its origins. Likewise, to understand Marxist Feminism, one needs to understand its origins among early revolutionary Marxists.