Why is the feminist movement still criticized?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

The title says it all really. Why are there people who are so strongly opposed to feminism? Some of them seem to even despise the word 'feminist'. Is it really deserving of this kind of criticism?

[khad]

It should be opposed, because it has nothing to do with socialism, but comes from the liberal left. Feminism is the intellectual middle class prison of female workers - it subdues them to bourgeoisie politics and is fundamentally reactionary.

What the fuck? What you describe is a function of a class of feminist thought. In fact, there is a lot of criticism within feminism of the bourgeois white female perspective. It's not monolithic, no matter how much you like your broad brushes.

All this shows is that you don't know anything about feminism.

[Raúl Duke]

The title says it all really. Why are there people who are so strongly opposed to feminism? Some of them seem to even despise the word 'feminist'. Is it really deserving of this kind of criticism?

I think, in the U.S. case, it has to do with the propaganda/smear that has occurred for a while against the world/term feminism which to some is almost like a "dirty word" as "liberal" was/is (also the word "socialist" or "communist") although in all sincerity I'm not 100% sure why.

Once or twice I have meet or heard women who are against the term or being called feminists but basically argue for and/or support basic feminist ideals.


It should be opposed, because it has nothing to do with socialism, but comes from the liberal left. Feminism is the intellectual middle class prison of female workers - it subdues them to bourgeoisie politics and is fundamentally reactionary. There's more then one kind of feminism, while most/many can be said to be bourgeois/liberal, there're some other forms such as those described as "marxist feminism", etc.

Although I have heard of some section of marxists-leninists that call every kind of feminism reactionary (Nothing Human is Alien I think was one of those).

This thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kind-feminist-you-t44754/index.html?t=44754&highlight=feminism) has some interesting descriptions of some types of feminism

[the last donut of the night]

All feminism, whether it is radical feminism, 'Marxist' feminism, liberal feminism, transfeminism or whatever criteria you would like to designate has nothing to do with working class emancipation. All sideline revolution or remain academic strands with little relevance to the working class - be it black, white, female or whatever. Feminism as a movement co-opts females to liberal reformist stances, divides on an identity basis.

Explain yourself.

[Agrippa]

All feminism, whether it is radical feminism, 'Marxist' feminism, liberal feminism, transfeminism or whatever criteria you would like to designate has nothing to do with working class emancipation. All sideline revolution or remain academic strands with little relevance to the working class - be it black, white, female or whatever. Feminism as a movement co-opts females to liberal reformist stances, divides on an identity basis.

How can you say that? The gender division of labor and sexual exploitation of women and children by men both predate all capitalist forms of class-division. If anything, gender is the primary contradiction within modern society, as it predates all modern ethnic divisions and divisions of socio-economic class.

The destruction of capitalism is meaningless when it's removed from the context of the destruction of patriarchal civilization.

[KurtFF8]

It should be opposed, because it has nothing to do with socialism, but comes from the liberal left. Feminism is the intellectual middle class prison of female workers - it subdues them to bourgeoisie politics and is fundamentally reactionary.

What an ignorant post. A large portion of the feminist movement has actually been anti-captialist and socialist.

I tend to recommend this article by Barbara Ehrenreich titled What is Socialist Feminism (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705ehrenreich.php) that will explain away conceptions like what I've quoted.


All feminism, whether it is radical feminism, 'Marxist' feminism, liberal feminism, transfeminism or whatever criteria you would like to designate has nothing to do with working class emancipation. All sideline revolution or remain academic strands with little relevance to the working class - be it black, white, female or whatever. Feminism as a movement co-opts females to liberal reformist stances, divides on an identity basis.

Would you extend this logic to black liberation and organizations like the Black Panthers?

And what do you mean it has nothing to do with working class emancipation? How the hell would one be a Socialist Feminist and not be a part of the class struggle?

Do you think that the 147 members of the Feminist group on RevLeft (the 2nd largest group mind you) ought to be restricted to OI for their "liberalism"? Give me a break.

Most of this anti-Feminist bs I've seen from the left recently has been quite ignorant and seems to come from the assumption that all feminism is necessarily liberal for some reason, and when that is proven wrong, these same anti-Feminists seem to dismiss things like Socialist/Marxist Feminism because class isn't the only thing that's focused on!

[Manifesto]

As long its not the "kill all men" feminism, its should be fully supported.

[KurtFF8]

Feminism, if it argues for social change at all - which is typically limited to this or that reform - elect Hillary! -, argues for organisation based on gender lines. Communists argue for revolution based on class lines. There is not one thing that is progressive about feminism. In my experience, all it has ever done is drawn (predominantly) white liberal female college students to white liberal college student politics. I find that it is, as a movement, fundamentally sexist in its approach, or sexist in its effect, because it limits females to female issues rather than class issues. Radical females are expected to be feminist and to argue on those issues, never on the basis of class lines. So fuck feminism, and fuck feminists.

I hate to sounds rude or condescending but did you even read my posts? Your posts here seem to show that you've had expierence only with Liberal feminists and apparently you aren't even open to the idea that there are revolutionary Feminists which is quite absurd. I suggest you read my previous posts

[Raúl Duke]

If you are a socialist, then by default you oppose discrimination in all forms.

Then you hold a similar point of view as Nothing Human is Alien (another poster) and a few others.

[KurtFF8]

RE the Black Panthers: yes. To hell with black nationalist movements. I recommend you read The Poverty of Feminism. If you are a socialist, then by default you oppose discrimination in all forms. But you can be a feminist without being a socialist - and that is what the vast, vast majority of feminists are whether you like it or not. As for 147 members of the feminist group - I'm not a leftist, so I couldn't care less how many members an internet clique has, or base my politics on that.

How exactly is Feminism discrimination?

And if you aren't a leftist, then why are you posting on this forum? Your earlier posts make it seem as if you are a revolutionary Communist (probably only in title though by the looks at posts like the one quoted above)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Feminism, if it argues for social change at all - which is typically limited to this or that reform - elect Hillary! -, argues for organisation based on gender lines. Communists argue for revolution based on class lines.
And communist feminists argue for revolution based on class lines with autonomous organisations based on gender lines as and when they become necessary. Clara Zetkin, Sylvia Pankhurst (you know, one of the pioneers of left communism in Britain), the Mujeres Libres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujeres_Libres), Emma Goldman, Alexandra Kollontai, Sheila Rowbotham...all liberals with no interest in class struggle, right?

I see the role of communists as Marx did: In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
Right. If you refuse to actively oppose patriarchy, then you implicitly support it. That is to say, you're upholding the interests of the male section of the class, separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

[Devrim]

Would you extend this logic to black liberation and organizations like the Black Panthers?
I agree with 'Sinistracomunistas' argument and would certainly extend it to groups like the Black Panthers, which also play their part in dividing the working class.
Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The Black Panthers are probably a bad example. But seriously: Mujeres Libres? Zetkin and the women's section of the SDP? Sylvia Pankhurst and the WSF?

[Dimentio]

The title says it all really. Why are there people who are so strongly opposed to feminism? Some of them seem to even despise the word 'feminist'. Is it really deserving of this kind of criticism?

It is a very male thing, which is more about social norms and fashion than any real opinions. At least in my country, it is very usual for "men amongst men" to joke about feminism or swear about it, cursing it and call it various names. It does not have any significant ideological meaning, it is more of a way of socialising between males. But that also depends on what kind of male environment it is.

For example in mech shops, it is usual that the mechanics have a calendar with naked girls hanging on the wall in their kitchen. That is not because they are creeps, but because it has become a cultural trait in that environment.

[Devrim]

The Black Panthers are probably a bad example. But seriously: Mujeres Libres? Zetkin and the women's section of the SDP? Sylvia Pankhurst and the WSF?
The WSF transformed itself from the 'Womens sufferage Federation to the 'Womens' and then to the 'Workers' Socialist Federation as part of the break with feminist ideology.
I don't think that Zetkin was ever a communist, bit more of a social democrat When she was a member of the KPD, she was always on the right which was basically the old USPD. It is the sort of politics that you can expect from Social Democrats.
Devrim

[NecroCommie]

Talking about feminism as an entity is a mistake in itself. Feminism has myriad different sects and all value different things, and prioritize others. I am in no way opposed to majority of feminist movements, but I do see some as going over the top. For example the "women are so much better than men" group is to me just as reactionary as chauvinist men.

[Niccolò Rossi]

[Feminism] comes from the liberal left

Feminism is fundamentally an ideology and movement alien to the proletariat. However, white-washing feminism's sociological origins in this way is untrue and unhelpful.


there're some other forms such as those described as "marxist feminism"

Emphasis added.


Although I have heard of some section of marxists-leninists that call every kind of feminism reactionary (Nothing Human is Alien I think was one of those).

I'm don't think NHIA identifies as a Marxist-Leninists. Either way he is often surprisingly right on these sort of issues and he is in this case too.


The gender division of labor and sexual exploitation of women and children by men both predate all capitalist forms of class-division. If anything, gender is the primary contradiction within modern society, as it predates all modern ethnic divisions and divisions of socio-economic class.Correct premise, bogus conclusion. The fact that sexual oppression (not to be confused with exploitation) predates capitalism has nothing to do with it's social primacy.


The destruction of capitalism is meaningless when it's removed from the context of the destruction of patriarchal civilization.

No it isn't. Communist implies the destruction of all forms of exploitation and oppression (patriachial, racial, etc.)

More importantly however, what does this have to do with feminism?


How the hell would one be a Socialist Feminist and not be a part of the class struggle?

I don't think your are this stupid, so I will assume this is just badly thought out. On your logic one could ask: "How the hell would one be a National Socialist and not be a part of the class struggle?"


Do you think that the 147 members of the Feminist group on RevLeft (the 2nd largest group mind you) ought to be restricted to OI for their "liberalism"?

No, some of us see value in debate.


Feminism ... argues for organisation based on gender lines.

Note: My emphasis.

Whilst this is a legitimate observation about vast swaths of the feminist movement and how they serve the ruling class, it isn't universal.


I find that it is, as a movement, fundamentally sexist in its approach, or sexist in its effect, because it limits females to female issues rather than class issues.

Again, I think this is a generalisation. There are feminists (Marxist feminists, etc.) who do take class into their analysis (superficially of course, but none the less). Again, this doesn't change the nature of this feminism as an ideology or movement, but the fact stands.


And if you aren't a leftist, then why are you posting on this forum? Your earlier posts make it seem as if you are a revolutionary Communist (probably only in title though by the looks at posts like the one quoted above)

This is because SC correctly draws a distinction between (revolutionary) communist and leftists. The terminology is maybe a little confusing if you aren't familiar with it, let alone it's pejorative connotations.


I am not a leftist - because leftism is either social democracy or Stalinism

Well that and everything in between.


And communist feminists argue for revolution based on class lines with autonomous organisations based on gender lines as and when they become necessary.

Women can not struggle for an end to oppression autonomously. Revolution and the abolition of all social oppression is a task only conquerable by the working class in and through the class struggle, not the autonomous struggle of oppressed peoples.


If you refuse to actively oppose patriarchy, then you implicitly support it.

No one is promoting or refusing to oppose patriarchy. What is being argued is that feminism is at best pointless and unable to offer a solution to patriarchy and at worst a counter-revolutionary ideology in direct opposition to the liberation of the working class.


Pankhurst turned to wish-washy liberalism. Emma Goldman at least had a class line, but was nonetheless an anarchist – so I scarcely care of her position. Kollontai became a stooge under Stalin rather than denounce the reaction and take a principled stance – so this is hardly someone to cite to me. Sheila Rowbotham is an academic social democrat. Zetkin was a parliamentarian and even her closest friends admitted her liberalism because of her involvement in suffrage.

Be careful not to equate later political degeneration or the out-and-out incorrectness of these women's political positions with the incorrectness of their line on feminism.

All-in-all though, SC has the right position on this question, even though weak on alot of the details and being a provocateur.

[Pogue]

I'm an anarcha feminist, i believe a natural part of revolution and anarchism is the emancipation of gender/sexuality from oppression of all kinds. So as such I feel no real need to say more than just anarchist because it neccesarily entails feminism.

[KurtFF8]

How is feminism discriminatory as an ideology? Certain strands certainly are - predominantly radical feminism and liberal feminism.

Actually a major current within Radical Feminism is Marxist Feminism. But you seem to have dismissed Marxist Feminism earlier.


I agree with 'Sinistracomunistas' argument and would certainly extend it to groups like the Black Panthers, which also play their part in dividing the working class.
Devrim

I don't see how groups like the Panthers were "dividing the working class". They were by no means "Black Supremacists" and worked with predominantly white leftist organizations quite frequently.


I don't think your are this stupid, so I will assume this is just badly thought out. On your logic one could ask: "How the hell would one be a National Socialist and not be a part of the class struggle?"

Fair enough, although that would be a bad analogy as Socialist Feminist currents have long upheld class struggle and have been a part of the working class movement for some time, that's the key difference here. SC initially was classifying all feminisms into one liberal or reactionary category, and initially completely dismissed that there even were pro-revolutionary feminist currents. It wasn't until later that SC began to dismiss revolutionary feminisms as still a reduction to liberal feminism. My point was to demonstrate that that assumption is false, hence why I posted a link to that article.


No, some of us see value in debate.

Of course, but SC wasn't really engaging in much other than "nope, feminism is liberal!" which is just false.


This is because SC correctly draws a distinction between (revolutionary) communist and leftists. The terminology is maybe a little confusing if you aren't familiar with it, let alone it's pejorative connotations.

I'm familiar with that distinction that is often made.

[Invariance]

Actually a major current within Radical Feminism is Marxist Feminism. But you seem to have dismissed Marxist Feminism earlier.
Just to point out, so far as I am aware, this is erroneous - Marxist feminism is not a sub-class of radical feminism; they are quite different conceptual apparatuses; radical feminism focusing on patriarchal gender relations, Marxist feminism focusing on the influence of class structures on social relations.

[KurtFF8]

Hmm, I was under the impression that the two were not mutually exclusive. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Pankhurst turned to wish-washy liberalism. Emma Goldman at least had a class line, but was nonetheless an anarchist – so I scarcely care of her position. Kollontai became a stooge under Stalin rather than denounce the reaction and take a principled stance – so this is hardly someone to cite to me. Sheila Rowbotham is an academic social democrat. Zetkin was a parliamentarian and even her closest friends admitted her liberalism because of her involvement in suffrage.
Some of those objections are just ridiculous. Does the fact that Pankhurst and Kollontai degenerated later in their political lives automatically discredit everything they said when they were communists? And you admit that Goldman had a class line, which neatly discredits your idea that feminism and class politics are mutually exclusive. Saying she doesn't count because she's an anarchist (i.e., has better politics than you) is just childish.

For every feminist you cite which you claim holds a class stance I can cite two dozen which don’t.
Yes. That's just because communism - and particularly your preferred flavour of ultra-purist dogma - is not very popular. To give an analogy, religious pacifists refuse to take part in imperialist wars. Given the respective popularity of communism and religion, it's probable that more people have refused to take sides in imperialist wars because of religious pacifism than because of communist principles. Does it follow that refusing to take part in imperialist wars is a religious pacifist idea that communists shouldn't bother with?

Firstly, I oppose patriarchy both in principle and in practice (so far as I an individual can).
Then, by my definition of the word, you're a feminist. Congratulations.
Thirdly, I am female and I’m not holding up male privilege because I think feminism is trash.
Do you oppose male privilege? If so, then I'd call you a feminist.
But I certainly think you, and other useless anarchists and liberals are coopting to social-democracy and capitalism in your support of feminism, and by supporting feminism you are restricting women’s voice in real radical movements. All sorts of animals are feminists, and most of those animals are liberals.
All sorts of animals call themselves communists, and most of those animals are Stalinists or some other form of Leninist. Does that mean you support Stalinism?

But LOL @ anarchists supporting reformists movements and petitioning the state. :D
I support anarcha-feminism, which is an anarchist position. It's not any less feminist for that. We're clearly using two different definitions of the word feminism here. Do you think that all feminist movements, by definition, are based around petitioning the state?

The WSF transformed itself from the 'Womens sufferage Federation to the 'Womens' and then to the 'Workers' Socialist Federation as part of the break with feminist ideology.
I'll certainly admit that the WSF broke with single-issue feminist ideology, that's undeniable (and, of course, a good thing). But did it ever break with socialist feminism?
And still, Mujeres Libres? Anyone care to step up and explain how they weren't proper revolutionaries?

[Devrim]

I'll certainly admit that the WSF broke with single-issue feminist ideology, that's undeniable (and, of course, a good thing). But did it ever break with socialist feminism?
And still, Mujeres Libres? Anyone care to step up and explain how they weren't proper revolutionaries?
certainly the WSF did. They went through the CP and ended up in the KAI, which rejected this sort of thinking.
As for the Spanish example, I don't know that much about it, maybe somebody can comment on it, but at the end of the day the Spanish anarchists weren't 'proper' revolutionaries. They did end up joining the government after all.
Devrim

[Pogue]

certainly the WSF did. They went through the CP and ended up in the KAI, which rejected this sort of thinking.
As for the Spanish example, I don't know that much about it, maybe somebody can comment on it, but at the end of the day the Spanish anarchists weren't proper revolutionaries. They did end up joining the government after all.
Devrim

lol, proper revolutionaries? Don't you talk about Lenin and the Bolsheviks of as being revolutionaries, despite them becoming the government?

Thats such rubbish. They were 'proper' revolutionaries, whatever proper means to the ICC, they just made mistakes. Its not uncommon. Its regretable and I don't support joining governments but that doesn't take away all the revolutionary acheivments of the Spanish proletariat and members of the CNT and FAI. I think this is a ridiculous position.

Any organisation is going to make mistakes especially when its faced with government and fascist repression. If the ICC was more than a talking shop you'd realise your organisation would make mistakes too. its easy to criticise when your theory revolves around the idea that you'll start doing solid organising and activity when the revolutionary period has already happened.

Also, the Friends of Durruti were opposed to working with the government. They were Spanish Anarchists. Were they 'proper revolutionaries' in the eyes of the ICC?

[Devrim]

Also, the Friends of Durruti were opposed to working with the government. They were Spanish Anarchists. Were they 'proper revolutionaries' in the eyes of the ICC?
the Friends of Durruti were a class reaction to the historic betrayal of Spanish anarchism. Incidentaly, they were quite clear that there was nothing revolutionary about the CNT.

Thats such rubbish. They were 'proper' revolutionaries, whatever proper means to the ICC, they just made mistakes.
I should have pit the 'proper revolutionaries' in inverted commas as I was refering to what the previous poster had said. The fact remains though that the CNT betrayed the working class in 1936 and in 1937 played it's role in disaing the working class before the Stalininist butchered them.
The question does arise of whether these 'mistakes' have any politcal basis.
Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

the Friends of Durruti were a class reaction to the historic betrayal of Spanish anarchism. Incidentaly, they were quite clear that there was nothing revolutionary about the CNT.

Devrim, are you trying to tell me you follow that line? That the CNT was not revolutionary? That is honestly utter bollocks.

[Kassad]

Feminism is often times portrayed as elitist; mostly by sexists who think that women aren't fighting for equality, but instead for female supremacy, which is ridiculous. The feminist movement is necessary due to the manipulative and patriarchal aspects of the capitalist society. Saying that the feminist movement is 'bourgeois' is like saying the movement for LGBT equality and racial equality is 'bourgeois'.

[Devrim]

That is honestly utter bollocks.
Well, that is a convincing argument.
Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well, that is a convincing argument.
Devrim

No I was stating my opinion, I wanted to know if you truly believe the Spanish Anarchists and CNT were not revolutionary. If so I must ask is it based around their entry into bourgeois government?

[Pogue]

the Friends of Durruti were a class reaction to the historic betrayal of Spanish anarchism. Incidentaly, they were quite clear that there was nothing revolutionary about the CNT.

I should have pit the 'proper revolutionaries' in inverted commas as I was refering to what the previous poster had said. The fact remains though that the CNT betrayed the working class in 1936 and in 1937 played it's role in disaing the working class before the Stalininist butchered them.
The question does arise of whether these 'mistakes' have any politcal basis.
Devrim

But you said the Spanish anarchists were not proper revolutionaries. They were not perfect revolutionaries, but no one is. I don't see how making mistakes in such circumstances means your not a proper revolutionary.

I'd like to know how you fit in your analysis of Lenin in with this? Was Lenin a 'proper revolutionary'?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It's worth bearing in mind the context here: we're trying to establish whether or not feminism is compatible with (or even a necessary part of) revolutionary class politics. In order to counter SC's absurd point that all feminists are liberal and not revolutionary, I gave a list of feminist revolutionaries, but the left communists can happily discount all these because they say no-one has ever actually been a communist ever, thus proving that there are no communist feminists. It's a neat conjuring trick.

[Revy]

People who think there are only class issues to be fought for and not issues of social liberation connected to that are not living in reality. It's easy to dismiss when you're not part of an oppressed group. It would be logical if indeed workers were all oppressed in the same way. They are not.

Anyway, here's one of Luxemburg's writings:

Women's Suffrage and Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/05/12.htm)

[Niccolò Rossi]

I feel no real need to say more than just anarchist because it neccesarily entails feminism.

Pogue actually makes a very good point here. The liberation of women from patriarchy and sexism (along with all other forms of social oppression) has always been inherent to Marxism and the project of proletarian revolution.

Thus, in-so-far as we define feminism simply as 'opposition to patriarchy and male privilege' (which is how UF seems to be defining it in his response to SC), all Marxists are feminists.

What people are forgetting here is that when every Marxist is a feminist, no Marxist is a feminist. Hence, terms like 'Marxist feminist' or 'Anarcha-feminist' aught to be totally redundant. In reality however they aren't. Because they describe something completely different to and more than merely opposition to the social oppression of women.


SC initially was classifying all feminisms into one liberal or reactionary category, and initially completely dismissed that there even were pro-revolutionary feminist currents.

I'm sure you could make the argument that not all feminism is liberal and yes pro-revolutionary feminists do exist to the extent that, yes they see themselves in favour of revolution. In the last place however, feminism is not revolutionary and feminists can end up firmly in the camp of the bourgeoisie.


Socialist Feminist currents have long upheld class struggle and have been a part of the working class movement for some time

I don't see any evidence of this being the case.


That's just because communism - and particularly your preferred flavour of ultra-purist dogma - is not very popular.

A little civility goes a long way.


Does it follow that refusing to take part in imperialist wars is a religious pacifist idea that communists shouldn't bother with?

No. This question is bogus though. This is not the basis on which feminism is being criticised.


We're clearly using two different definitions of the word feminism here.

Indeed. In my opinion your definition is totally useless.


Saying that the feminist movement is 'bourgeois' is like saying the movement for LGBT equality and racial equality is 'bourgeois'.

Indeed it is. (Though this is not to say that the liberation of LGBTI peoples and peoples suffering racial and ethnic oppression is itself bourgeois, on the contrary it is inherent in the abolition of capitalism.)


People who think there are only class issues to be fought for and not issues of social liberation connected to that are not living in reality.

This is undoubtedly true, however, no one is doing that here.

The question is not whether we support the abolition of patriarchy and all forms of social oppression but what is the political significance of this and what tactics must be employed to this end.

[SHEHATEME]

Feminism, if it argues for social change at all - which is typically limited to this or that reform - elect Hillary! -, argues for organisation based on gender lines. Communists argue for revolution based on class lines. There is not one thing that is progressive about feminism. In my experience, all it has ever done is drawn (predominantly) white liberal female college students to white liberal college student politics. I find that it is, as a movement, fundamentally sexist in its approach, or sexist in its effect, because it limits females to female issues rather than class issues. Radical females are expected to be feminist and to argue on those issues, never on the basis of class lines. So fuck feminism, and fuck feminists.

Yes feminism does argue for social change! and yes it is based on gender lines, because our gender is very important to our being, just as class is. of course feminism is sexist it looks at how to change society from the views of one sex that is it purpose, because women have had to fight to be treated equal they put in just as much labour as their male counterparts and do not always recieve the same rewards. Just as the working class put more labour than middle/upper calss and do not recieve what they deserve. Working class women can not address one without the other. Acknowledge the class struggle and surley as a women or a man you have to acknowledge the struggle between genders.

[Devrim]

No I was stating my opinion, I wanted to know if you truly believe the Spanish Anarchists and CNT were not revolutionary. If so I must ask is it based around their entry into bourgeois government?

No, it is based upon their intergration over a long period, starting before the civil war, into the bourgoise state.

There wasn't a revolution in Spain. The state was not smashed instead the CNT ended up becoming a a part of it.

We analyise the development of the CNT in a long series of articles here:http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/cnt-rev-syndicalism
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/CNT-1914-1919
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/130/CNT-1919-1923
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/CNT-1921-31
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/20http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/spain_cnt_193608/132/spain_1934


In way of conclusion The spectacular events that took place from July 1936 in which the CNT was the main protagonist: demobilising and sabotaging the workers' struggles in Barcelona and other parts of Spain in response to the Fascist uprising, its unconditional support for the Catalan Generalitat and participation, at first indirectly and then openly in this government; the sending of ministers to the Republican government are well known.[24]
These facts clearly show the CNT's treason. But they are not a storm that suddenly appeared from a blue sky. Throughout this series we have tried to show why this terrible and tragic situation of the loss for the proletariat of an organisation born from its own efforts took place. It is not a question of destroying a great myth or revealing a grand lie but of examining with a global and historical method the processes that led to this betrayal. The series on revolutionary syndicalism and within that the series of articles on the CNT,[25] has tried to provide the materials for opening up a discussion that will allow us to draw lessons to arm ourselves with faced with the struggles to come. Confronted with the tragedy of the CNT we can -as the philosopher said- neither laugh or cry but only understand.



But you said the Spanish anarchists were not proper revolutionaries. They were not perfect revolutionaries, but no one is. I don't see how making mistakes in such circumstances means your not a proper revolutionary.

As I said before the term proper was referring to the comment made by the previous poster. Let's see what the Friends of Durruti said:


What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.

They were also clear on the subject of betrayal:

The CNT ought to have leapt into the driver's seat in the country, delivering a severe coup de grace to all that is outmoded and archaic. In this way we would have won the war and saved the revolution. But it did the opposite. It collaborated with the bourgeoisie in the affairs of state, precisely when the State was crumbling away on all sides. It bolstered up Companys and company. It breathed a lungful of oxygen into an anaemic, terror-stricken bourgeoisie.


Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Friends of Durruti's analysis of the situation isn't accurate. The state wasn't crumbling away at this point, the bourgeoisie were not anaemic. The CNT, whether right or wrong, didn't join government out of choice. They saw this as a neccessary and temporary precaution.

As Federica Montseny, minister of health explains:


At that time we only saw the reality of the situation created for us: the communists in the government and ourselves outside, the manifold possibilities, and all our achievements endangered

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Pogue actually makes a very good point here. The liberation of women from patriarchy and sexism (along with all other forms of social oppression) has always been inherent to Marxism and the project of proletarian revolution.

Thus, in-so-far as we define feminism simply as 'opposition to patriarchy and male privilege' (which is how UF seems to be defining it in his response to SC), all Marxists are feminists.

What people are forgetting here is that when every Marxist is a feminist, no Marxist is a feminist. Hence, terms like 'Marxist feminist' or 'Anarcha-feminist' aught to be totally redundant. In reality however they aren't. Because they describe something completely different to and more than merely opposition to the social oppression of women.
See, I agree that in reality they aren't, but for a completely different reason. Logically, opposition to patriarchy ought to be an integral part of anarchism and Marxism; in practice, many Marxist and anarchist groups have failed to do this. Until such a time as all Marxists and anarchists actually behave in a feminist way, Marxist and anarcha-feminism is still relevant.


I don't see any evidence of this being the case.

Again, those examples I gave aren't relevant because? And while I agree that the class struggle hasn't always been spearheaded by socialist feminists, that's because a lot of the time it's been dominated by socialist misogynists. Which is why socialist feminism is relevant.


A little civility goes a long way.

I completely agree (and, for the record, I think "your preferred flavour of ultra-purist dogma" is actually preferable to most of the other brands ;) ). But I was replying to Sinistra Communista, who doesn't seem very familiar with the idea.


No. This question is bogus though. This is not the basis on which feminism is being criticised.

It's certainly the basis that SC was using. Her argument does seem to come down to "lots of feminists are liberals and not revolutionaries, therefore feminism is liberal and not revolutionary".


Yet not social revolution. Which is unreservedly reactionary. Except that real communists, real revolutionaries want to abolish gender, not justify it or perpetuate it by organising on such a grounds.
Right, like how we want to abolish class, not justify it or perpetuate it by organising on class lines. Wait, organising on class lines to abolish class is exactly what we do, just like organising on gender lines to abolish gender.

The difference is that class actually is a means to radically transforming the world, whereas organising on gender lines – e.g. female bosses and female workers, is like organising between the hangman and the hanged.
Right. Except that no-one here advocates that, socialist feminists argue for autonomous movements of women workers as and when they become necessary. Like organising between, um, the hanged and the hanged?

If you want true equality then such a system will only be enabled by the overthrow of capitalism, since capitalists are unlikely, if ever, to introduce a system which provides free child-care and which doesn’t limit females to menial work. It is utterly opposed to its interests. Hence, at the very best being a feminist is entirely superfluous. This shows the bankruptcy of your position and other feminists.
The overthrow of the capitalist system is necessary for the abolition of gender, but it doesn't follow automatically that getting rid of capitalism will inevitably cause patriarchy to disappear.

There is no struggle between genders. There are struggles between classes. I have everything in common with male workers and nothing in common with female bosses.
Nope. You have the vast majority of interests in common with male workers and not female bosses. But gender is still relevant. I have the confidence of knowing I'm six times less likely than a woman to be assaulted by a partner, and the knowledge that I will never need an abortion. You do not have that in common with me.


All communists oppose sexual inequality, but that doesn't mean communists are feminists.
I see what you did there - you've neatly disappeared away the difference between "all people who are genuinely communists and uphold the correct communist line" and "all people who call themselves communists". Presumably, according to you, all genuine communists are left communists, which must make the term left communist redundant, right?

Either you have feminists who petition the state for this or that reform, which would run contrary to your anarchist principles, or you have anarcha-feminists who argue for female-based movements, which runs contrary to the idea of a unified working class movement.
The existence of male privilege runs contrary to the existence of a unified working class movement.

[LeninKobaMao]

I personally find them very annoying because in most countries they have achieved what they wanted to achieve and they still want more.

[LeninKobaMao]

Feminism might have been a progressive force in 1890. Now international woman's day is marked in the calendar of the bourgeoisie and they celebrate it more reverently than anyone else.

Most bourgeoisie politicians don't give a shit about women's rights they only celebrate it because they are desperate for support and maybe they can cash in on it some how. My reply might sound shallow but it's true the bourgeoisie don't care about anything except support for themselves and oppressing the working class and look like they are actually doing something to help them.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I personally find them very annoying because in most countries they have achieved what they wanted to achieve and they still want more.
As a feminist, I want to see gender roles abolished. I don't think we've achieved that yet.

Would you agree that the only means to abolish sexual divisions is to abolish capitalism? Then how on earth do you propose to abolish capitalism by organizing on gender lines - i.e. non-class lines?
I think we need an international movement to abolish capitalism. I also think it's necessary to organise on a local basis - i.e., a non-international level.
They're not necessary, they never have been necessary. There is absolutely no reason for female workers to organize on a separate basis from male workers.
Then why do working-class women in revolutionary movements keep on creating them?

In an economy which allows for socialized care, which abolishes wage labour and introduces a socialized economy, patriarchy is all but done for, since patriarchy rests on the mutual economic and social dependence re male and female workers.
Loleconomicreductionism.

And how is it that if I, and other females, organize together we would be able to prevent or reduce this?
Yup, women's self-defence workshops are absolutely 100% useless at preventing attacks on women.

You forgot to mention that I'm not a liberal-anarchist. :)
And I'm not a dick.

No, this is your stupid mind inventing things which don't exist. My point was quite clear: you can be a communist without being a feminist and you can be a feminist without being a communist.
You can be call yourself a communist without being a feminist, but you can call yourself a communist without being a communist either.