Theory Thursday #2

This week's Theory Thursday is the first bite into Marxist Feminism for us. As promised, we are following the list of texts presented by Draper/Lipow in their critique, "Marxist Women vs. Liberal Feminism". Their first text is a decent introduction to Marxist Feminism, a selection from August Bebel's "Woman and Socialism", written in 1879. The selection is entitled "The Enemy Sisters" and is an historical look into the development of separate Liberal and Marxist ideas on Feminism, and a good introduction to why the distinction is important.

To begin, it is important to recognize that, at the time Bebel was writing, the terms "feminism" and "feminist", when used at all, in general applied to what we would call "Liberal Feminism", since feminism as a movement had not really developed. The German term "Frauenrechtlerinnen" is utilized, instead, by those early Marxist Feminists, Clara Zetkin, August Bebel, and Rosa Luxemburg, to describe their Liberal opponents. Draper translates it as "women's-rightsters" and claims that "Liberal Feminist" isn't exactly a proper translation. I have used it primarily because a study of these early "women's-rightsters" shows that their program translated into Liberal Feminism as it matured. So, for economy of language and ease of readability, I use Liberal Feminism to describe the Frauenrechtlerinnen and modern Liberal Feminists.

The selection chosen by Draper opens with a stark accusation: legislative equality under the juridical domain does not undermine the very real exploitation of women at the hands of their husbands within the confines of the nuclear family:

"If we assume the case, which is certainly not impossible, that the representatives of the bourgeois women’s movement achieve all their demands for equal rights with men, this would not entail the abolition of the slavery that present-day marriage means for countless women, nor of prostitution, nor of the material dependence of the great majority of married women on their husbands. Also, for the great majority of women it makes no difference if some thousands or tens of thousands of their sisters who belong to the more favourably situated ranks of society succeed in attaining a superior profession or medical practice or some scientific or official career, for nothing is thereby changed in the overall situation of the sex as a whole."

This is really the core of the difference between Liberal Feminists and Marxist Feminists. In the Nineteenth Century in which Bebel was writing Liberal Feminism was principally concerned with the position of women in only a juridical sense. Bebel thereafter explains that juridical concerns can ameliorate this condition in which women find themselves, but cannot emancipate women fully, and that a full revolution in women's social and material conditions is necessary to accomplish this. It is this question of material conditions that differentiates Liberal and Marxist Feminism (and really Marxism, in general, from other political philosophies), as Bebel believes juridical equality does not guarantee social and material well-being.

"Hence it follows that all women – regardless of their position in society, as a sex that has been oppressed, ruled, and wronged by men throughout the course of development of our culture – have the common interest of doing away with this situation and of fighting to change it, insofar as it can be changed through changes in laws and institutions within the framework of the existing political and social order. But the huge majority of women are also most keenly interested in something more: in transforming the existing political and social order from the ground up, in order to abolish both wage-slavery, which afaicts [sic] the female proletariat most heavily, and sex-slavery, which is very intimately bound up with our property and employment conditions."

Here, now, having established that a focus on juridical versus material conditions is what divides a Liberal Feminist outlook from a Marxist Feminist outlook, Bebel makes a startling synthesis, that Liberal Feminism is, ultimately, a philosophical position held by women of privilege in opposition to proletarian women, making the stark class divide at the core of Marxist agitation apparent within Feminism.

"The preponderant portion of the women in the bourgeois women’s movement do not comprehend the necessity of such a radical transformation. Under the influence of their privileged position in society, they see in the more far-reaching movement of the proletarian women dangerous and often detestable aspirations that they have to fight. The class antagonism that yawns like a gulf between the capitalist class and the working class in the general social movement, and that keeps on getting sharper and harsher with the sharpening of our societal relations, also makes its appearance inside the women’s movement and finds its fitting expression in the goals they adopt and the way they behave."

He demands, therefore, that, though it is necessary to achieve juridical and social equality in all things, it is imperative to go beyond that and he intimately links the "woman question" to the "social question" and views their solutions as one and the same.

"It is therefore a question not only of achieving equality of rights between men and women on the basis of the existing political and social order, which is the goal set by the bourgeois women’s-rightsers, but of going beyond that goal and abolishing all the barriers that make one human being dependent on another and therefore one sex on another. This resolution of the woman question therefore coincides completely with the resolution of the social question."

This is also the core difference between Liberal Feminists and Marxist Feminists, today. Despite a shift from a juridical to a socio-cultural focus in modern Liberal Feminism, Liberal Feminism still insists on operating within the social and political framework of the present-day system. A cursory glance at the opponents of women's equality shows that the Republican War on Women is being led by relatively young men such as Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. Socially, the emergence of the "nice guy", awash in Ax body spray, fedoras, and the shame of the "friendzone", and the unofficially-sanctioned rape culture of high school boys and college fraternity members shows how fragile this sort of focus really is. Truly, Bebel's conclusion that the solution to the "woman question" is the same as the social question carries a great amount of gravity with it--a juridical solution to one as necessitated by a lack of juridical protection does not solve or balance the equation. A juridical solution is a necessary component, and we should support juridical measures to support and liberate women, but it is not sufficient. And this is why Marxist Feminism should be pursued, revived, and expanded. It is also why Bebel declares his solidarity with the Social-Democratic Party of his day, because

"[T]he Social-Democratic Party is the only one that has included in its programme the complete equality of women and their liberation from every form of dependence and oppression, not on grounds of propaganda but out of necessity, on grounds of principle. There can be no liberation of humanity without the social independence and equal rights of both sexes."

 In other words, there is no women's liberation without social liberation, and social independence and juridical equality of both men and women is necessary for the whole of humanity to be liberated.

Next week, we will be discussing Clara Zetkin's pamphlet "Proletarian Women and Socialist Revolution". Having a basis in the foundation of Marxist Feminism, we can move on to the practical concerns of one of Marxism's most vocal and influential feminists and her address to the Gotha Congress.

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.