Marxism and Feminism: A Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Exposition
Shivani Kaul
(Part-1)
Introductory Remarks
The relationship between Marxism and Feminism has always remained a rather strained as well controversial one. There are “Marxists” who have been rather too accommodating of what is broadly called as Feminist politics and then there have been feminists who have remained “tolerant” towards Marxist ideology despite incessant laments against Marxism for being “class reductionist” and “economic determinist”! The battle lines are drawn till this day and the apologia of many a so-called Marxists pertaining to Marxism being blind to the question of oppression of women in particular and all kinds of social oppression in general continues unabated. So, can there be really a marriage between Marxism and Feminism which some have termed ironically, though inadvertently correctly enough, as an unhappy one? However, before one answers this, it would be more apt to ask another question as to whether such a union is even desirable or needed? What does this ‘dual-systems’ approach – Feminism for dealing with the question of women’s oppression and Marxism for dealing with the question of economic/class exploitation – offer in terms of real politics, a politics that is transformatory, a politics that is emancipatory, not just for a handful of women but for the masses of women?
This is not some peripheral issue that needs some kind of dealing at the end but this is one of most fundamental importance. The point of departure of the present analysis makes it clear at the very outset that Marxism and Feminism represent two fundamentally different philosophical, ideological and political approaches vis-à-vis women question which cannot be fused together.
Matter of factly, in all the discussion surrounding the question of women’s oppression what gets lost is the foundational fact that Marxism and Feminism represent two completely different world outlooks and two completely different political lines on the question of the oppression of women, or what we can call ‘Women Question’. Therefore, there can be no blending or fusing together of the two as has been and remains in vogue in progressive circles. Anything such as ‘Marxist Feminism’, ‘Socialist Feminism’ or ‘Proletarian Feminism’ is a misnomer, an oxymoron as both belong to two separate opposing philosophical camps and hence propose two diametrically opposite solutions and paths for the emancipation of the women. This middle-road approach has resulted in quite a few catastrophic outcomes.
In this series that will follow in the coming issues of The Anvil as well, we will dwell in detail on many of the points surrounding the question of Women Liberation. We will focus our attention on the specificity of the historical context in which Feminism as an ideology and as a movement was born, and we will also discuss many of the key feminist schools and what their proposal entails as to the question of liberation of women. Needless to say that the critique of these positions will be emanating from a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist perspective. However, before we focus our attention on history of feminism and its various waves, particular feminist schools, major feminist theorists and all kinds of shades and strands of feminisms and the feminist practice, in the present installment we will try to offer a broad overview of the things to come.
The first basic postulate that needs to be underlined is that Feminism is nothing else but representative of bourgeois line on the Women Question. It is interesting to note that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao never used the term ‘Feminism’. They used the term ‘Women’s Question’ to refer to the proletarian standpoint on the question. Having said that, ironically enough, there is no dearth of such “Marxists” and “Communists” who profess themselves to be “Marxist Feminists” as we have mentioned above! This is precisely owing to the utter lack of an ideological and theoretical clarity which causes many in academia and progressive movements alike to confound and obfuscate certain foundational premises as well as owing to the capitulationist stand taken by “Marxists” to wash away the “sins” of so-called class reductionism. These kinds of people have done much disservice to the cause of Marxism. In the name of breaking new ground and rectifying the “old” mistakes, these namesake Marxists have actually caused the infiltration of identity-based politics in the various movements against the different kinds of social oppression. Lenin spoke of “a clear and ineradicable line of distinction between Marxist policy and feminism” and yet the concoction is getting made with ever-increasing vigour! Let’s hear it out from Lenin himself:
The thesis must clearly point out that real freedom for women is possible only through communism. The inseparable connection between the social and human position of the women and private property in the means of production, must be strongly brought out. That will draw a clear and ineradicable line of distinction between Marxist policy and feminism. And it will also supply the basis for regarding the women’s question as part of the social question, of the workers’ problem, and so bind it firmly to the proletarian class struggle and the revolution. The communist women’s movement must be a mass movement, a part of the general mass movement. That movement will be not only of the proletariat, but of all the exploited and oppressed, all the victims of capitalism or any other mastery. In that lies its significance for the class struggles of the proletariat and for its historical creation of communist society. We can rightly be proud of the fact that in the Party, in the Communist International, we have the flower of revolutionary womankind. But that is not enough. We must win over to our side the millions of working women in the towns and villages. Win them for our struggles and in particular for the communist transformation of society. There can be no real mass movement without women. (V. I. Lenin, 2010, The Emancipation of Women: From the Writings of V.I. Lenin, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow, p.110, our emphasis)
The above words of Lenin are the best exposition on the subject of the ideological-political incompatibility between Marxism and Feminism. Also, these words are a tight slap in the face of all those who dishonestly accuse Marxism of being blind to the forms of social oppression as Lenin categorically underlines the fact that the general mass movement against capitalism will not be only of the proletariat but of all the exploited and the oppressed people, including, of course, women.
It must be emphasized more than once that the question of a correct political orientation on the question of the oppression of women ought not to be an academic exercise for those who are committed to the cause of women liberation, rather correct political line depends on the correct diagnosis of the root cause of the oppression of women and consequently leads to correct analysis and understanding of the problem. A correct orientation will help us identify who the enemy is, who is it we should be fighting against, who are the allies and what should be the program, strategy and general tactics of the Women Liberation Movement.
This brings us to our second basic postulate. Whereas Feminism replaces the question of politics and political line with that of identity, that is, the identity of being a woman, Marxism underlines that any identity becomes a site of social oppression only in the moment of class or in the framework of class antagonisms. For Marxists, the oppression of women has a history. The sexual difference between men and women was not always-already a site or basis of the oppression of women. Therefore, Marxism traces the cause of women’s oppression to its origins and in its historical development. History tells us that the oppression of women began at a definite point in time and it was rooted in the change of material-economic conditions of the society. There is ample historical evidence to suggest that before the division of society into classes, human society was in fact matriarchal or matrilineal and only at a certain point in the development of human society does subjugation and subordination of women arise. The roots of the oppression of women can be traced back to the emergence of surplus production, emergence of private property, need to determine a definite line of inheritance, emergence of heterosexual monogamous patriarchal family, emergence of classes and, finally, the state. The path-breaking work of Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State offers useful insights in this regard. Needless to say that the oppression of women assumed different forms under different social formations and relations of production but nonetheless, in essence the oppression continued to and continues to remain under the present capitalist mode of production. However, this can be said with utmost certainty that the oppression of women did not exist since time immemorial, that sexual difference in itself and by itself did not constitute or led to the oppression of women and that the oppression of women came into existence at a definite stage of development of human society.
Here comes the third basic postulate. Once the social oppression based on an identity comes into being, an attendant ideology manufacturing the ideological justification and legitimization of that social oppression which sustains and perpetuates the same oppression, too, comes into existence which then gains relative autonomy from the class relations from which it arose, though in the last analysis, that is, in the final instance, it is the system of class antagonisms which determines the ideological forms. Similarly, Patriarchy or male domination as an ideology and misogyny also came into existence with the class divisions and emergence of the private property and it has since been developed, co-opted, molded, adjusted, remolded and readjusted under every new kind of social formation. The ideology of patriarchy in its turn may affect the class relations as well, however, it cannot function as totally autonomous or independent of the class antagonisms.
In this regard, the ideological function of religion must be identified as well. Religion too plays a major role in perpetuating the patriarchal ideas and attitudes and offers a sort of mythic aura to the systematic oppression and subordination of women. Thus religion works hand in gloves with the patriarchy and creates religio-ideological justification for women’s subordination. Besides, family also plays an important role of, especially under capitalist system, not only an economic unit but also an ideological unit perpetuating and institutionalizing patriarchy and subjugation of women. Family itself is a site of women oppression in a class society, especially under capitalist mode of production the heterosexual monogamous patriarchal family plays a very important function for the capitalist state and the ruling classes. The dual function of a family entails that it is the principal site of the reproduction of the labour power which includes both the daily reproduction as well as generational reproduction of the working class as well as its function as the ideological state apparatus, to borrow from Althusser.
However, the institution of family has itself undergone many changes with the changing modes of production and under capitalism the family has acquired a special role. Moreover, this too must be borne in mind that the patriarchy or the institution of family we witness today is the capitalist patriarchy and the capitalist family and not some pre-capitalist, pre-modern or feudal patriarchy or family; it has been co-opted by the capitalist mode of production. Today, under the yoke of capital in the capitalist mode of production, women bear a dual burden, especially the working class women as they are exploited and oppressed by both capital and patriarchy.
The fourth basic postulate is that the entire feminist politics and practice is doomed from the very beginning to land in a pessimistic and contradictory quagmire. As opposed to the dialectical materialist analysis of the causes of oppression of women, the entire feminist analysis is in essence idealist, non-dialectical and metaphysical. Feminism looks for causes of the oppression of women based on apparent and superficial experiences and tries to find the same in the gender identity itself. Thus the apparent reality is assumed to be the essential reality and no effort is made to break through these appearances of oppression. It reduces the causes behind women’s secondary position with respect to men and their enslavement to their identity of being women itself, which leads to many self-defeating and pessimistic outcomes. The men in general are treated as the beneficiaries of this oppression whose necessary corollary would be that all women are the allies. But it begs the question that are all men enemy? Are all women, including those belonging to the ruling classes, allies? This self-inflicted contradiction makes feminist position on oppression of women almost untenable.
The broad spectrum of feminist analysis of the cause of oppression of women goes only as far as either identifying men as the enemy, or women’s biological being/reproductive function as the enemy, family or patriarchy as the enemy. Objectively speaking, the capitalist class and the bourgeois state, which, in fact benefit from the structural and systemic oppression of women, are left out of dock. Thus, the question of who the real enemy is gets misarticulated and remains unanswered throughout the feminist discourse. And precisely this is the reason why feminist politics cannot provide any direction and program for the liberation of the masses of women. That is why the feminist movement leads to nothing substantial, is reduced to mere tokenism and reformism and eventually goes on to objectively benefit the ruling classes themselves.
This leads us to our fifth basic postulate which is that the entire feminist practice is steeped in reformism and symbolism and has a marked petty-bourgeois class character. As far as the feminist practice is concerned, it does not go beyond the advocacy and fragmented struggles for recognition and representation (in terms of reservation in educational institutions, jobs, legislative assemblies, parliament etc.), self-organization (at the same time being averse to the idea of leadership) in form of sorority groups, self-help groups, leading self-awareness, anti-oppression training as well as sensitization campaigns, using politically correct “woke” language, making changes in personal lives, etc. The petty-bourgeois character of this practice is clearly visible. In most of the struggles led by feminists of various strands, the role of state is never questioned; rather sometimes the state is seen as a great mediator and even as an ally. Thus, the capitalist class and bourgeois state are absolved of all culpability. It is not without reason that in recent times most of the feminist struggles are spearheaded by NGO-type of women organizations who share rather cozy relationship with corporates and the state alike. They do not even shy away from taking enormous funds from all kinds of dubious funding agencies, imperialist giants and even governments! This is not some degeneration of a “radical” politics rather a logical culmination of a politics which is ahistorical, reformist and essentially status-quoist.
Of late, there has been an endless fragmentation within the feminist movement itself owing to the dominance of ‘intersectionality’ proponents. Thus, within feminist movement itself, independent and autonomous struggles of Black women, women of colour, Dalit women, Tribal women, Queer women are to be waged as other women are beneficiaries and privileged vis-à-vis these women! So, Black feminism, Dalit Feminism, Queer Feminism, Anarcho Feminism, Eco Feminism etc. have gained prominence and no unity of purpose and action exists, rather all such unity is deemed oppressive, univeralist and homogenizing. This is how identity-politics comes back to bite itself!
In the series which will follow in the coming issues, we will see how the origins of feminism and feminist movement coincides with the beginning of the bourgeois revolutions, particularly, the French Revolution and how the women from newly emergent middle classes, that is, the petty bourgeoisie took lead in asserting their demands and rights. This leads us to first wave of feminism, the liberal feminist school which focused more on advocacy, securing political right especially the right to vote, equal pay for equal work and other rights. The methods employed were largely those of lobbying and petitioning, radical forms were shunned and it was hoped that the state would intervene by granting representation and other rights. This thought in fact emanated from the liberal philosophical belief itself. It must be pointed out that when the first churnings of the feminist movement were underway at that time the working class too was trying to come into its own, was increasingly becoming a political class especially in Europe. Later in early twentieth century, the world-epochal Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 occurred which materially changed the lives of millions and millions of common masses of women. Though we hardly find any mention of this historic event in the feminist literature which is a strange kind of conspiratorial silence on something of this magnitude and significance. Moreover, presence of a socialist state gave red scare to most of the bourgeois nations which in order to avoid a Red Revolution at all costs gave some concessions to the Pink Tide.
However, at this time too the most radical forms were assumed by those women’s movements which were closely aligning themselves with the working class movement and in fact had socialist leanings, for instance, the women’s movement in Britain. The second wave of feminism mostly represented by the French Feminists, had a radical posturing but their analysis of women oppression was bereft of all materialist underpinnings and lacked any sense of history. There is, however, no single school of Radical Feminists. Later the third wave came too which was majorly influenced by intersectionality theory. However, more on this in the next issues.
Apart from a critical appraisal of the history of the feminist movement and different waves of bourgeois feminism, notable feminist figures such as Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millett, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Juliet Mitchell, Shulasmith Firestone, Michelle Barrett, Luce Irigaray etc. and their major works will be discussed and limitations of their analysis will be exposed. It does not need to be mentioned that their “analysis” does point out towards certain aspects of the oppression of the women, though only in an idealist and metaphysical manner and have only descriptive value, and no analytic or prescriptive power. All those trends which distort Marxism over the women question, which falsely accuse Marxism of being blind to the reality of social oppression will also be refuted. Those who try to blend the opposing philosophical schools of Marxism and Feminism will also be dealt with.
Besides this, the ‘domestic labour debate’ and social reproduction theory of the 1970s’ and later will be put to thorough critical examination which were initiated by their proponents to “rectify” the “errors” of classical Marxist position which they falsely accused of being silent on the role of “unwaged” domestic labour/household work women do which is crucial in the reproduction of the labour-power and which they erroneously believed to be unaccounted for and some of them even went so far as to demand “wages for housework”. The proponents of this debate believed that the roots of women oppression under capitalist system is the household work they do. Since women’s domestic labour produce no value and hence no surplus value for capitalist system, they diverted all their ire on the Marx’s analysis of capitalist mode of production as if it was Marx who thought of women’s work of no value itself! Moreover, women’s household work can be characterized as reproductive labour which, though socially useful and necessary, is not productive for capital as it produces no value and hence no profit for the capitalists. They fail to grasp that how the capitalist state as well as capitalist class privatizes and minimizes the cost of reproduction of the labour-power by using the domestic labour of women available in the individual family units which (the family) both serve an economic and ideological function under capitalist mode of production as we have briefly discussed above. All participants of the debate were in agreement on the question of cause of oppression of women to be the engagement of women in domestic labour under capitalism. Some even went so far as to characterize household work as a separate mode of production which is pre-capitalist or non-capitalist having its own laws of motion! One of the major limitations of this approach, besides its blatant misinterpretation of basic categories of Marxist political economy and its failure to understand Marxist political economy, especially Marx’s Capital, was its reducing the whole of women oppression to the sphere of domestic labour as if women are not waged workers! Significant names among the participants in the ‘domestic labour debate’ were Mariarosa Della Costa, Selma James, Hiedi Hartman, Lise Vogel, Silvia Federici and mostly recently Tithi Bhattacharya et al.
These so-called Marxist Feminists propose, in their specific different versions, a dual/two system theory: Marxism for class/economic exploitation and Feminism for women oppression! These analyses try to charge Classical Marxism as being class reductionist and economic deterministic and giving secondary importance to other struggles. Therefore, they try to introduce their analyses as a sort of course-correction within Marxism! The proponents of such claims have, consciously or unconsciously, a very naïve and misplaced understanding of Marxism and are unaware of the fact that Marxism as a revolutionary philosophy, science and ideology is against every kind of social oppression and proletariat as a political class is against all kinds of identitarianisms, including workerism, economism and anarcho-syndicalism which treat social class of the workers as an identity in itself and how this particular kind of identity politics is far-removed from the correct Marxist-Leninist position.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand the women’s question from a Marxist perspective, and only then can the project of Women’s Liberation be taken forward in a correct manner. One can encapsulate these introductory remarks with following words. The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position on women’s question maintains that the fight for women’s emancipation is not an idealist and misplaced fight against men in general but against the existing relations of production and the system of private property and capital which not only provide material conditions for systematic and structural subjugation of women but also engender ideological forms which buttress, maintain and sustain that subjugation in the form of ideology of patriarchy, misogyny, sexism, male domination etc. The problem with feminist analysis is that it does not challenge the basis, the ground, the material conditions of women’s dual oppression, instead what Feminism strives to do is struggle for reforms and concessions in the existing structural framework. It, consciously or unconsciously, fails to see that without the overthrow of capitalism and the abolishing of private property, the goal of emancipation for the millions and millions of the masses of women cannot be accomplished.
(to be continued)
