Why do Left Communists oppose Feminism?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Feminism, as I understand it, is the movement for the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes and, in its more radical forms, for the abolition of gender roles. Left communists, as far as I know, support the goals of feminism; however, they seem to oppose the movement itself. This seems odd to me; it's as though they are saying that women should have equal rights, but that they shouldn't fight for them. Am I making an unfair judgment?

[Madvillainy]

Left communists, as far as I know, support the goals of feminism; however, they seem to oppose the movement itself.

This seems odd to me; it's as though they are saying that women should have equal rights, but that they shouldn't fight for them.

What left communists argue is that since capitalism has entered into its period of decadence calling for reforms to help the oppression of women is useless, progressive reforms are no longer obtainable.

I would say and I hope you would agree, that women cannot end sexual oppression themselves it is only the working class can resolve the divisions in society, whether they are sexual, religious or racial divisions.

Here's a few articles that explain the left communist position better than I do:

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/international-womens-day

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/260_women.htm

[which doctor]

It has become really difficult to specify what exactly "feminism" is, since it encompasses such a wide tradition, with often contradictory ideas. There's bourgeois, Liberal feminism; socialist radical feminism; post-modern radical feminism; pseudo-feminism, etc.

Is there a specific feminism that you're referring to?

[Muzk]

So basically, feminist movements these days are useless since reforms won't work? And only once socialism is achieved we can overcome discrimination? Makes sense.

But don't the movements right now draw more women to the extreme left? So I will still support feminism, every anti-capitalist movement is usefull

[Durruti's Ghost]

It has become really difficult to specify what exactly "feminism" is, since it encompasses such a wide tradition, with often contradictory ideas. There's bourgeois, Liberal feminism; socialist radical feminism; post-modern radical feminism; pseudo-feminism, etc.

Is there a specific feminism that you're referring to?

Well, I regard liberal feminism as basically useless since it ignores economic oppression. So I'm mainly referring to socialist feminism (the achievement of sex equality through socialism) and radical feminism (which emphasizes the importance of the abolition of gender roles). When left communists criticize feminism, are they referring specifically to liberal feminism or broadly to all kinds of feminism, including the socialist and radical varieties?

[Alf]

Thanks, madvillany, for posting those links to our site. I tried to find a link to an article from the communism series (and in our book 'Communism is not a nice idea...') which also tries to answer the feminist critique that marxism underestimates the problem of sexual inequality. Unfortunately the article is not on line yet, but the ones you linked to contain enough to be getting on with!
I would say that marxists have always been against feminism, which even during the 19th century they saw as a bourgeois movement of reform which inevitably subordinated the class issue to the issue of gender. They countered this with a historical view of the origins of the oppression of women, which saw the solution to the problem in the class struggle and the proletarian revolution.
They also, in general, opposed the formation of separate womens' organisations, even if there may have been commissions within the workers' parties which focused on work towards proletarian women.
The marxists did support 'progressive' reforms to improve the position of women in general and proletarian women in particular. This situation has changed now that capitalism has nothing progressive to contribute, as madvillany points out. In today's period, the existing divisions between the sexes can only be overcome as part of the unification of the working class against capitalism, in the course of its independent struggle, not as a separate women's movement, which actually tends to reinforce those divisions. We would say exactly the same regarding racial divisions and the idea of fighting them on the basis of separate ethnic groups

[Durruti's Ghost]

I would say that marxists have always been against feminism, which even during the 19th century they saw as a bourgeois movement of reform which inevitably subordinated the class issue to the issue of gender. They countered this with a historical view of the origins of the oppression of women, which saw the solution to the problem in the class struggle and the proletarian revolution.


Wait, then is it your view that the proletarian revolution will in and of itself bring about sexual equality, or that it is merely a necessary precondition of sexual equality? If the former, what makes you think this is the case?

[Muzk]

If the former, what makes you think this is the case?

Well I'm not against feminism but, you know, WHY would the ruling class/capital even listen to such things? Or even change them? Oppression of the woman is needed to get more capital / keep them out of struggles

Yknow, women are worth less on the market because of their weakness and risk of pregnancy. :sleep:


IF they change it, it will, in the end only be a national thing, to once again, simply preserve the system. A neccessary change. Or revolution would come.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well I'm not against feminism but, you know, WHY would the ruling class/capital even listen to such things? Or even change them? Oppression of the woman is needed to get more capital / keep them out of struggles

Yknow, women are worth less on the market because of their weakness and risk of pregnancy. :sleep:


IF they change it, it will, in the end only be a national thing, to once again, simply preserve the system. A neccessary change. Or revolution would come.

:confused:

I think you may have misread my question. I understand that the bourgeoisie would oppose the liberation of women and, as a result, socialist revolution is most likely a necessary precondition for true equality of the sexes. I was asking if the left communists thought socialist revolution would be sufficient to bring about sex equality and if so, why.

[Alf]

Wait, then is it your view that the proletarian revolution will in and of itself bring about sexual equality, or that it is merely a necessary precondition of sexual equality? If the former, what makes you think this is the case?

Both are true in a sense: the proletarian revolution in its narrow sense (overthrow of the ruling class, establishment of proletarian power) merely creates the conditions for a communist transformation which will necesarily overturn all existing social relations, and thus the present relations between the sexes; at the same time this is not a matter of rigid stages but has to begin to question and attack all aspects of capitalist alienation.
We would also say such a challenge to existing relations already takes place in the day to day to day class struggle, above all when it begins to take on a massive and autonomous character
We touched on this in our analysis of the student struggles in France in 2006
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/125_france_students

[scarletghoul]

So we should oppose every progressive movement unless it is campaigning for straight up proletarian revolution ?:confused: This seems ultra-leftist and pretty foolish strategically, as it will isolate us from many progressive-minded people (not just feminists but also anti-imperialists, anti-racists, anti-fascists, LGBT rights people, etc)

[Durruti's Ghost]

Both are true in a sense: the proletarian revolution in its narrow sense (overthrow of the ruling class, establishment of proletarian power) merely creates the conditions for a communist transformation which will necesarily overturn all existing social relations, and thus the present relations between the sexes; at the same time this is not a matter of rigid stages but has to begin to question and attack all aspects of capitalist alienation.


My biggest issue with the notion that communist transformation will necessarily overturn sex inequality is that patriarchy, historically, predates class society. It was present even in hunter-gatherer societies that might be termed "primitive communist." Given this, it seems to me that there needs to be some additional effort directed toward ending patriarchy before and even after the economic basis of society has transformed into a communist one.

Also, what scarletghoul said.

[Leo]

I think you may have misread my question. I understand that the bourgeoisie would oppose the liberation of women and, as a result, socialist revolution is most likely a necessary precondition for true equality of the sexes. I was asking if the left communists thought socialist revolution would be sufficient to bring about sex equality and if so, why.

Well, patriarchy necessarily begins to be broken before the socialist revolution, but can only be completely annihilated as a result of it. When talking about a socialist revolution, we are not talking about a mere coup d'etat performed by a political party, an armed gang or a specific movement: we are talking about the overthrow of the the ruling class by the entire working class united. Half of this working class is made up of female workers of course, and without their participation, without them taking part in all aspects of the proletarian revolutionary movement from the workers' councils and committees created by them to the red guard militias as revolutionary workers and workers' leaders and similarly taking part in all and organs of the class party to come, a socialist revolution is impossible. Patriarchy, far from being a mere government policy, has now become a social disease, and it can only be broken in the process of the social revolution.

Aside from not being willing to abolish it, the current ruling class is not capable of abolishing or even softening it.

Left communists oppose feminism because feminism, by arguing that a different solution other than a united proletarian social revolution is possible to this problem, work not for abolishing but whether willingly or not maintaining patriarchy and are diverting proletarian women who are looking for a way out of this from the path of class struggle into all sorts of reformist or sectarian activities.

Revolutionary communists do not compromise class positions because they fear they will be isolated as a result of defending them. Isolation of revolutionaries, hard as it might be to bear, is something temporary and determined only by the strength of the whole class, opportunism on the other hand leads to leaving the class terrain permanently.


My biggest issue with the notion that communist transformation will necessarily overturn sex inequality is that patriarchy, historically, predates class society.

This is factually false though. In fact patriarchy marks the beginning of class society.


It was present even in hunter-gatherer societies that might be termed "primitive communist."

This also is not true. Women held great social and political power in this period, and were regarded with great respect, were seen as sacred and superior beings because they gave birth in fact. Indeed this status of the hunter-gatherer societies led many anthropologists to mistakenly regard this period as matriarchal, despite the fact that there was no oppression or systematic imprisonment of men whatsoever as opposed to the way things are for women in patriarchy.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What left communists argue is that since capitalism has entered into its period of decadence calling for reforms to help the oppression of women is useless, progressive reforms are no longer obtainable.

Just when I think left commies aren't that bad, there's always something stunningly insane. Are you genuinely claiming that the decadence of capitalism means that capitalism can no longer grant any more reforms? If so, I suppose we should expect the revolution any day now.

[Durruti's Ghost]

This is factually false though. In fact patriarchy marks the beginning of class society.



Well, I actually agree with you if by "class society" you mean a society not characterized by pure equality. However, I was using "class society" to refer to the historical period that began with the formation of slave societies, continued through feudalism, and remains to this day in the form of captialism.


This also is not true. Women held great social and political power in this period, and were regarded with great respect, were seen as sacred and superior beings because they gave birth in fact. Indeed this status of the hunter-gatherer societies led many anthropologists to mistakenly regard this period as matriarchal, despite the fact that there was no oppression or systematic imprisonment of men whatsoever as opposed to the way things are for women in patriarchy.

The anthropology department at Ohio State University disagrees: http://foragers.wikidot.com/gender-hierarchies

Also, it's important to note that even in the hunter-gatherer societies that come closest to being justifiably described as "egalitarian" (such as the Mbuti society), gender roles remain intact. Thus, these could only be described as sexually egalitarian if you believe that it is possible for two genders to be "separate but equal".

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not just left communists. Most Marxists oppose feminism as a bourgeois ideology which teaches working class women that they have more in common with bourgeois women than with the rest of the working class. This was illustrated at the time by the refusal of the feminist movement in America to collaborate with the black movement out of racist motives (something which, of course, also blocked doubly-oppressed black women from participating in the struggle).

Since then feminism has evolved in many directions, but as far as I can tell all still retain the fault that they view oppression as a biological rather than a class issue.

[Leo]

Just when I think left commies aren't that bad, there's always something stunningly insane. Are you genuinely claiming that the decadence of capitalism means that capitalism can no longer grant any more reforms?

It can't grant any permanent and general reforms. It even can't maintain the permanent and general reforms it granted when it was not decaying, such as the 8 hour day or the abolition of child labor.


If so, I suppose we should expect the revolution any day now.

Saying that revolution is objectively possible does not mean that the subjective factor, that is the working class, is capable of doing it any day now.


Well, I actually agree with you if by "class society" you mean a society not characterized by pure equality.

I mean a society where there is exploitation, people not being treated as equals to other people can only be a result of this.


However, I was using "class society" to refer to the historical period that began with the formation of slave societies, continued through feudalism, and remains to this day in the form of captialism.

There are a few other minor class societies before the evolution of antiquity though. The trigger is the property of land and the first expression and form of the beginning of class society is patriarchy.


The anthropology department at Ohio State University disagrees: http://foragers.wikidot.com/gender-hierarchies (http://www.anonym.to/?http://foragers.wikidot.com/gender-hierarchies)

Well, lets see...


Scholars of hunter-gatherer societies have found several factors that influence equality between the sexes:


the amount of time men spend away from women (e.g., on long hunts)

Also means the amount of time women spend away from men, that is gathering (which was the basis of the development of agriculture), as well fishing starting from the mesozoic. Considering that hunting also is a less reliable source of food than either gathering or fishing, if anything, women had more economic power than men and considering men being away for a while, if anything women had more power in the socio-political life of the collective living areas.


social structures that provide a foundation for male domination to flourish (e.g., older men arranging marriages for young girls/infants)

This is very dubious. It is well known that there was no conception of family or marriages in the hunter-gatherer societies and both men and women got together with whomever they wanted and whomever wanted them. In fact the father of the child was almost always unknown. Even later on, in pre-slavery forms of class society when marriage developed, the groom went to the brides house rather than the other way around initially.




women's access to food (e.g., the control over amount of food, what is eaten, and when eating takes place)

The conditions of the time required the sharing and collective consumption of all food brought in anyway.




the open exchange of knowledge between males and females (if monopoly of knowledge develops)

Obviously, in the hunter-gatherer societies, knowledge of hunting remained more or less in the monopoly of male elders while the knowledge of gathering remained more or less in the monopoly of female elders. Class society developed based on the latter though, and while the former created the necessary physical strength for the agricultural class society to kick off, it was economically a dead end. I don't think this proves the hunter-gatherer societies to be patriarchal in any way.




cultural changes through incorporation of outside ideas and/or technology

I have no idea how this is related to patriarchy. If the point being made is that class societies corrupted hunter-gatherer societies and thus spread, then well yeah.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It's not just left communists. Most Marxists oppose feminism as a bourgeois ideology which teaches working class women that they have more in common with bourgeois women than with the rest of the working class. This was illustrated at the time by the refusal of the feminist movement in America to collaborate with the black movement out of racist motives (something which, of course, also blocked doubly-oppressed black women from participating in the struggle).

Since then feminism has evolved in many directions, but as far as I can tell all still retain the fault that they view oppression as a biological rather than a class issue.
Then you don't know shit about feminism. Yes, communists should oppose bourgeois liberal currents of feminism, but socialist, Marxist and anarchist currents of feminism all have a clear class analysis.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I have no idea how this is related to patriarchy. If the point being made is that class societies corrupted hunter-gatherer societies and thus spread, then well yeah.

First off, what caught my eye in the article was this, actually:



Examples of Inequality in Australian Aboriginal Society


A squabble between a husband and wife led to the wife hitting her husband with a stick. The husband responded by gathering three of his kin with spears to threaten her. The spear they threw landed dangerously near the paternal grandmother of the women. After this, the women’s father stepped in, but only in defense of his own mother and not for his daughter. While the husband could gather kin to be on his side, no one sided on that of the woman.
Because of repeated beatings she received from her husband, a woman left her camp to hide at another camp. Later, she was humiliated in public by her husband, threatened, beaten, and raped until she eventually returned home.
The aboriginal group, the Walbiri, who have two distinct sections of camp: a man’s side and a women’s side. If a woman ventures to the male side, she is beaten and raped. If a man ventures to the women’s side, people believe that he is contemplating adultery and so the women, that this man is assumed to be the lover of, is beaten by her husband.
In another aboriginal group, the Ginjingali, fights frequently break out between men over a woman. If no resolution is found, the men beat the woman they are fighting over and sometimes this results in the death of the woman.

If we take modern foraging societies as examples of what early foraging societies looked like, it seems that patriarchy did indeed exist in some of them prior to the development of private property in land. I don't really see how such practices would have resulted from corruption introduced by class societies...

[eyedrop]

Yknow, women are worth less on the market because of their weakness and risk of pregnancy. :sleep:

The physical weakness doesn't mean squat in most jobs in todays world and the risk of pregnancy problem can be equalised by equal paid maternity and paternal leave.

The bigger problem is the ingrained patriarchy of most board rooms and the need for the capitalists to maintain artificial divisions to prevent unity.

[Leo]

If we take modern foraging societies as examples of what early foraging societies looked like

Which we can't anyway, so...


Then you don't know shit about feminism. Yes, communists should oppose bourgeois liberal currents of feminism, but socialist, Marxist and anarchist currents of feminism all have a clear class analysis.

Not really. These are all left-identity politics in different forms that emerged in the 60s, as a part of the general movement to turn away from the working class and find other "agents of change".

[Yehuda Stern]

Then you don't know shit about feminism.

I know a lot of shit about feminism, including the "socialist" variant, to which I was referring.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Which we can't anyway, so...


Really? Modern foraging societies serve as basically the only source of evidence that early foraging societies were egalitarian at all. If we can't take them as at least close approximations of what the early societies looked like, how can we justify our claims that at least some of them were egalitarian?

[Leo]

Really? Modern foraging societies serve as basically the only source of evidence that early foraging societies were egalitarian at all. If we can't take them as at least close approximations of what the early societies looked like, how can we justify our claims that at least some of them were egalitarian?

The analysis of the nature of prehistoric societies made by the anthropologists, paleontologists and pre-historians is mainly based on the remains found of these societies, and the status of the current primitive communal or semi-communal societies contribute only as a support for the what the actual remains show.

[blake 3:17]

These are all left-identity politics in different forms that emerged in the 60s, as a part of the general movement to turn away from the working class and find other "agents of change".

Have any idea how hard women, people of colour, and queer people have had to fight in the unions? Within left parties?

There are issues which are specific to women's oppression which a magical perfect Socialism or Anarchy or Liberation or whatever just won't solve. A small left party I have some contact with supports abortion rights under capitalism but opposes them under socialism. The women just roll their eyes.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So we should oppose every progressive movement unless it is campaigning for straight up proletarian revolution?

The implicit assumption here is that feminism represents a progressive movement.


Have any idea how hard women, people of colour, and queer people have had to fight in the unions? Within left parties?

Sure. What does this have to do with anything though?


There are issues which are specific to women's oppression which a magical perfect Socialism or Anarchy or Liberation or whatever just won't solve.

This has already been dealt with. But again, what relevance does this have?


A small left party I have some contact with supports abortion rights under capitalism but opposes them under socialism. The women just roll their eyes.

What party is that?

To make it very clear, whilst the communist left opposed feminism, we are the most ardent supporters of the liberation of women from sexism, patriarchy and the all sexual oppressions.

As a general point regarding this thread, but also related to Blake's post specifically, I think one of the major problems with any discussion on feminism is the equating of feminism with the goal of the liberation of women. Feminism is a bourgeois ideology, one which I would argue in practice is actually opposed to it's own supposed goal.

[Leo]

blake 3:17


Have any idea how hard women, people of colour, and queer people have had to fight in the unions? Within left parties? I probably have more experience of general oppression based on identity (ethnic, in my case) more than you will ever have in your lifetime. I wouldn't make assumptions about what I have an idea of and what I don't if I were you.

This being said, in an actually internationalist communist organization, one has nothing to fight for within the organization on that point regardless of the level of oppression in the society or in the unions or "left parties".


There are issues which are specific to women's oppression which a magical perfect Socialism or Anarchy or Liberation or whatever just won't solve.So what is your specific solution to these specific problems which a real social revolution can't solve?


A small left party I have some contact with supports abortion rights under capitalism but opposes them under socialism. The women just roll their eyes.I am sure that party has other serious problems aside from that position. I would imagine that they have members who are woman also, since sex does not determine ones politics, or whether one is an idiot or not.

[Искра]

Then you don't know shit about feminism. Yes, communists should oppose bourgeois liberal currents of feminism, but socialist, Marxist and anarchist currents of feminism all have a clear class analysis.
That's not true.
Most of anarcha-feminists are actually liberal.

[blake 3:17]

To make it very clear, whilst the communist left opposed feminism, we are the most ardent supporters of the liberation of women from sexism, patriarchy and the all sexual oppressions.

You might well be. How do I know? But I think women deserve the right to organize themselves.


As a general point regarding this thread, but also related to Blake's post specifically, I think one of the major problems with any discussion on feminism is the equating of feminism with the goal of the liberation of women. Feminism is a bourgeois ideology, one which I would argue in practice is actually opposed to it's own supposed goal.

Cuz women are too dumb? Don't know what's best for them? Don't worry about being stuck with the kids and old people and the laundry and dishes and the cooking and be happy because we'll solve all your problems at the workers council?



So what is your specific solution to these specific problems which a real social revolution can't solve?

Which social revolution do you have in mind? No social revolution has managed to abolish oppression. Good steps, yes. Getting rid of the garbage, no.

[Madvillainy]

You might well be. How do I know? But I think women deserve the right to organize themselves.

Do you think the emancipation of women will be the work of women alone? Or do you think it will be the revolutionary action of the working class that will end the oppression of women and humanity? If it is the latter, then why do you call on women to organize by themselves instead of joining the general struggle against capitalism (the communist movement)?


Which social revolution do you have in mind? No social revolution has managed to abolish oppression. Good steps, yes. Getting rid of the garbage, no.

Can you explain how oppression will be abolished if not by a communist revolution? I'm genuinely curious.

[Red Dreadnought]

We don't oposse to women liberation (and also of men) and of all alienation about sex problem. We thought that it's no possible a "feminist movement" independent of the class struggle, and to divide working class in terms of gender. By the same cause we reject to create "youth organitations" out of party.

Of course, we oppose to "new theories" that believe that Marx was wrong and is neccessary a "feminist correction" of marxism, equating class fight with "anti-patriarcal" one. And definetively we consider fully reactionary ideologies that postulate "sex war" against male or those consider women promotion within the system (some "lefties" spoke me that it was progresive that Margaret Tatcher was a women, even if they condemned her politics... well there were a Cataline a Russia, or and Elisabeth at England cents ago, fully reationaries). In this context "our" fucking Zapatero says he wants "women liberation" making them ministers:confused:

Salud.

[Red Dreadnought]

Nevertheless, we don't oppose to partial progresses on woman condition, like working movement in XIX do. Like we don't oppose personal concienciouness in relationship with women and reject all abuses and maltractments. But the core of alienation at sexual level is inherent to this system

[Niccolò Rossi]

You might well be. How do I know?

By the fact that we state it clearly. Unless you seriously suggest the communist left is really an international association of misogynists plotting for the enslavement of all women to the household and the authority of men.


But I think women deserve the right to organize themselves.

I never much understood the purpose of talking in 'rights'. We oppose the organisation of women as women, on a cross-class basis and apart from the proletariat as a whole.

However, the communist left has neither the capacity nor the desire to forcibly suppress such associations. So saying "women deserve the right to organize themselves" seems pretty meaningless to me.

More than this, the line that each oppressed group is endowed, by nature of being an oppressed group, the right to organise autonomously, is very clearly an expression of liberalism.


Cuz women are too dumb? Don't know what's best for them? Don't worry about being stuck with the kids and old people and the laundry and dishes and the cooking and be happy because we'll solve all your problems at the workers council?

Beating up straw men won't get you anywhere. When you have a real point maybe you will get a real response.


Which social revolution do you have in mind? No social revolution has managed to abolish oppression. Good steps, yes. Getting rid of the garbage, no.

You are correct. But what are you proposing as an alternative? Do you think the autonomous organisation of women qua women is a solution to this?

[blake 3:17]

I believe in both the right and necessity of women organizing autonomously. We clearly disagree, so not sure why to continue this discussion.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I believe in both the right and necessity of women organizing autonomously. We clearly disagree, so not sure why to continue this discussion.

To clarify the question?

How do you ever propose to win someone to revolutionary ideas with such a cop-out attitude. The fact that we disagree is precisely the reason to continue discussion! If all you want is head nodding to the sound of one hand clapping, your welcome to keep up that attitude.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

That's not true.
Most of anarcha-feminists are actually liberal.
I think most of the anarcha-communists who're also feminists (or anarcha-feminists who're also communists, if you want to look at it that way) that I know would disagree with you on that one.

[ls]

That's not true.
Most of anarcha-feminists are actually liberal.

It depends on your definition of anarcha-feminists, those who actually challenge the correct tiers of oppression of females are, those who aren't.. don't. It's true though that 90% of 'feminism' whether it's under the anarchist label or not is bourgeois at its core.


Have any idea how hard women, people of colour, and queer people have had to fight in the unions? Within left parties?

Nope, as of course no one on a revolutionary left forum filled with all kinds of different people knows oppression, no chance at all.


There are issues which are specific to women's oppression which a magical perfect Socialism or Anarchy or Liberation or whatever just won't solve. A small left party I have some contact with supports abortion rights under capitalism but opposes them under socialism. The women just roll their eyes.

Then they are a worthless little party and there's little point having contact withem. Anymore irrelevance?

[blake 3:17]

Then they are a worthless little party and there's little point having contact withem.

They were a long time ally of OCAP.

Edited to add: Apologies for being pissy. Just in the beginnings of a union drive and gotta focus.

[9]

It depends on your definition of anarcha-feminists, those who actually challenge the correct tiers of oppression of females are, those who aren't.. don't. It's true though that 90% of 'feminism' whether it's under the anarchist label or not is bourgeois at its core.



Nope, as of course no one on a revolutionary left forum filled with all kinds of different people knows oppression, no chance at all.



Then they are a worthless little party and there's little point having contact withem. Anymore irrelevance?

I think you're being remarkably snide and disrespectful, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep that attitude outside of the Learning Forum; it is not as though you provided any insight that was anything less than irrelevant in your comment, so I'm not sure that you're in a position to be dismissing the comments of others as such anyway.

In spite of the defensive remarks in response to blake's question, I think the point s/he was trying to make was valid, although I suppose it could have been asked differently. My experience with other leftists, at protests, strikes, and in discussion groups (etc.) has been that sexist sentiments and attitudes are extremely prevalent among leftists, and I suppose my concern comes from seeing the "feminism is bourgeois, take your identity politics elsewhere" attitude being used to defend sexism within the left when attempts are made to address it, and to deride those who make the attempts to address it. So I suppose my question would be whether left communists see sexism as an issue that needs to be addressed or whether they think that any attempt to address it is divisive and "bourgeois" and constitutes "identity politics".

[ls]

I think you're being remarkably snide and disrespectful, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep that attitude outside of the Learning Forum; it is not as though you provided any insight that was anything less than irrelevant in your comment, so I'm not sure that you're in a position to be dismissing the comments of others as such anyway.

It's odd, because a frank discussion on bourgeois feminism or class-struggle perspective feminism always turns bitter, do you deny that 90% of everything that masquerades as 'feminism' is bourgeois or not, it's a simple and direct point.


In spite of the defensive remarks in response to blake's question

'defensive'? Do you perhaps want to see what blake wrote in the first place upon re-review of the thread?


I think the point s/he was trying to make was valid, although I suppose it could have been asked differently. My experience with other leftists, at protests, strikes, and in discussion groups (etc.) has been that sexist sentiments and attitudes are extremely prevalent among leftists, and I suppose my concern comes from seeing the "feminism is bourgeois, take your identity politics elsewhere" attitude being used to defend sexism within the left when attempts are made to address it, and to deride those who make the attempts to address it. So I suppose my question would be whether left communists see sexism as an issue that needs to be addressed or whether they think that any attempt to address it is divisive and "bourgeois" and constitutes "identity politics".

Address what? Of course gender inequality is all-pervasive throughout society and that includes the left but who.. denied that? Self and criticism of others is important I would say, that includes on a small friendly level as well as on bigger levels when there are big espousals of misogyny (which in my experience, in my groups has been dealt with pretty well).

And yes, 90% of all identity politics not just feminism is bourgeois, sorry but it's just the truth, that's not how I want it but it is just a fact. I think identity politics must not cross over too far into the realm of politics, otherwise we will have all the old stuff about autonomous liberation of whatever group of whoevers that are like this or that, divorced from the real m of other left people.

I mean don't you think stuff like this is needless:
But I think women deserve the right to organize themselves.

So should 'black workers' organise themselves too excluding others? It doesn't just stop there does it, most people would agree racial oppression is a lot worse than misogynist oppression too.


They were a long time ally of OCAP.

Yep, well I've never said HCAP, PCAP, KCAP, LCAP, OCAP, ECAP or any of the other coalitions against poverty are perfect, they are a lot better than the party you mentioned by the sounds of it though.


Edited to add: Apologies for being pissy. Just in the beginnings of a union drive and gotta focus.

Fair enough, apologies from me too.

[Alf]

So I suppose my question would be whether left communists see sexism as an issue that needs to be addressed or whether they think that any attempt to address it is divisive and "bourgeois" and constitutes "identity politics" (Apikoros).

Not at all. Communists should oppose all expressions of sexism because they divide the working class. These expressions may include chauvinist attitudes by male workers towards female or gay workers, wage differentials based on sex, etc etc. Chauvinist attitudes can also appear in the revolutionary movement and should be fought against without compromise. It seems to us that the best way to oppose these divisions is to insist on the unified organisation of the class, not to advocate separate organisations for women, or gay men, or gay women, or whatever.

[h0m0revolutionary]

It seems to us that the best way to oppose these divisions is to insist on the unified organisation of the class, not to advocate separate organisations for women, or gay men, or gay women, or whatever.

Agreed. But surely you defend our right to caucus, within revolutionary orginisations and along class lines, as LGBTQ or Women or Disabled (etc. etc.) for fear our views may be sidelined in the larger orginisation. As long as we have as our aim to report back to the wider membership our concerns, if any?

[Alf]

But if you fear that your views will be sidelined, isn't there a problem with the way the organisation functions?
There seems no end to the possibility of forming 'caucuses' inside a revolutionary organisation. But if female, or gay, or black, or Jewish, or disabled, or whatever other category of comrade you can come up with feel that the wider organisation is in some way discriminating against them, then the organisation has a deep problem, and if people needed to get together as a minority within the organisation to raise this question, why would they exclude male, straight, white, non-Jewish, 'abled' or otehr category of comrade, who agreed that there was a problem, from working with them?

[Andropov]

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/international-womens-day
Interesting articles and a good read how ever this highlighted piece did piss me off no end.

All this chatter is nothing but pure mystification. Capitalist domination isn't a problem of sexuality but of social class. When bourgeois women take control of the state, they carry out exactly the same capitalist policies as their male predecessors. They would all follow in the steps of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who is remembered for her leadership in the Falklands War in 1982 and for having let 10 IRA hunger strikers demanding political prisoner status die around the same time. They all behave the same, like Sarkozy's associates, Michèle Alliot-Marie, Rachida Dati, Valérie Pécresse, Fadela Amara and their consorts. The bourgeoisie can't contemplate any difference between the sexes in the management of its national economy. And the boss of the bosses' organisation, Laurence Parisot, also does a good job for the bourgeoisie, as her predecessors from the ‘stronger sex' did before him.

[9]

^That is an interesting article, especially because it mentions The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State which I just finished reading the other week and which I literally just mentioned in a thread I made earlier this morning. Also interesting, though, was this:



Originally Posted by the ICC
The recuperation of the women's movement by bourgeois democracy

It wasn't a gamble for the German bourgeoisie to grant women the right to vote on November 12th 1918, the day after it signed the Armistice. It was no surprise that in the country where the international movement of socialist women was born, in the country where the greatest female figures in the workers' movement at the start of the 20th century, Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin, were militants, that the ruling class would try and break the revolutionary spirit of women by granting this demand when parliament had become an empty shell for the working class.It is possible that I'm remembering my history wrong, but I thought Luxemburg was in favor of, and agitated for, women's suffrage..?

[Devrim]

Interesting articles and a good read how ever this highlighted piece did piss me off no end.

Yes, I believe it should read seven and three, or ten republican. Mistakes get made, sorry.

Devrim

[Andropov]

Yes, I believe it should read seven and three, or ten republican. Mistakes get made, sorry.

Devrim
No problem Devrim, just the chuck inspired revisionism does grate on me.

[Psy]

It's not just left communists. Most Marxists oppose feminism as a bourgeois ideology which teaches working class women that they have more in common with bourgeois women than with the rest of the working class. This was illustrated at the time by the refusal of the feminist movement in America to collaborate with the black movement out of racist motives (something which, of course, also blocked doubly-oppressed black women from participating in the struggle).

Since then feminism has evolved in many directions, but as far as I can tell all still retain the fault that they view oppression as a biological rather than a class issue.

This is true, feminism can't even imagine a class struggle due to the fact females occupy both classes as it would mean proletariat women in conflict with bourgeoisie women. Feminists expect proletariat women to care if their female managers are barred from promotion when the same female managers exploit them and falls apart in its reasoning when class struggle climaxes into a workers revolution as you have proletariat women attacking bourgeoisie women.

A example is though feminists protest police raping women yet their support of bourgeoisie women causing them to support the same police when workers lock horns against the police, they only want the "bad apples" in the police to be brought to "justice". Their bourgeoisie ideology is against a revolutionary proletarian army crushing the police as it would mean picking a side in the class struggle which feminists can't do as again females occupy both classes thus they end up being highly reactionary rather then revolutionary.

A good example would be feminists throwing their support behind Hillary Clinton even though Hillary Clinton is not only part of the bourgeoisie but a imperialist responsible for the deaths of women overseas for the expansion of US imperialism.

[Madvillainy]

It is possible that I'm remembering my history wrong, but I thought Luxemburg was in favor of, and agitated for, women's suffrage..?

They were different times though, I think these few paragraphs from the second article I posted explain it well.

"In other respects, our reader correctly recalls the existence of assemblies and clubs at the time of Rosa Luxemburg. First of all we should specify that it's not a question of inter-classist associations indiscriminately regrouping the worker and the wife of the boss, but organisations of 'socialist women'.

But what was still valid at the end of the 19th century, in the ascendant period of capitalism, is no longer so today. At a time when capitalism could still accord significant reforms to the exploited class, it was legitimate for revolutionaries to put forward immediate demands for women, including the right to vote, while warning against any inter-classist illusions.

It is in this context that the social democratic parties had to support the specific claims of women, inasmuch as they did not immediately liberate them from capitalist oppression but strengthened the proletariat by integrating women workers into the general struggle against exploitation and for the overthrow of capitalism"

[blake 3:17]

It is possible that I'm remembering my history wrong, but I thought Luxemburg was in favor of, and agitated for, women's suffrage..?

Not especially. She was deeply involved in the struggle for suffrage and electoral campaigning for SPD. She never really took up any feminist or proto-feminist positions. She did demand treatment as an equal. The bits and pieces in her major writings that could be read as feminist are really no different from from Bebel or Lenin.

Zetkin, on the other hand, was, I think safe to say a socialist feminist. She was the leader of the women's commission of the Second International, declared International Women's Day, and wrote on the specificities of women's oppression.

I think it worth noting that Zetkin had children and Luxemburg didn't.

[9]

^I was not suggesting that she was a feminist. I was suggesting that she was in favor of women's suffrage (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/05/12.htm). I also think Zetkin wasn't a feminist (again, I may be wrong).

[Leo]

Yes, it is indeed true that Rosa Luxemburg among with other prominent left socialists of the time supported. Rosa Luxemburg makes it very clear why they did so in the text you linked to:

The current mass struggle for women’s political rights is only an expression and a part of the proletariat’s general struggle for liberation. In this lies its strength and its future. Because of the female proletariat, general, equal, direct suffrage for women would immensely advance and intensify the proletarian class struggle. This is why bourgeois society abhors and fears women’s suffrage. And this is why we want and will achieve it.

Since the majority of the post-WWI revolutionary movement was clear that the parliamentary tactic was no longer one that can advance the cause of proletarian women or the proletariat in general, the point for suffrage ceased being made.

There is a famous story where Kautsky says to Luxemburg: "Rosa, why don't you write about the women's question?". Luxemburg replies: "Karl, why don't you write about the men's question?"

A famous example is the left communist Sylvia Pankhurst, who came not from a socialist but from a suffragist background, splitting from the suffragist movement which included her mother Emmeline and her sister Christabel because of its support for the imperialist war, finally changing the name of her paper from Women's Dreadnought to Workers' Dreadnought.

Zetkin too was critical of feminism rather than being an adherent, although she was an advocate of a line which was quite harmful in my opinion, of separate women's wings in the socialist movement practically isolating them and removing them from the rank and file and the leadership of the movement, basically imposing the same imprisonment on women in the socialist movement that they are subjected to in the patriarchal society. Certainly, if women in the socialist movement had to resort to forming separate organizations within the socialist parties, this was a result of the increasingly patriarchal character the opportunist social democratic parties were assuming but this formula pointed to no solution and Rosa Luxemburg, for example opposed the formation of such separate organizations.

[Red Dreadnought]

VThere is a famous story where Kautsky says to Luxemburg: "Rosa, why don't you write about the women's question?". Luxemburg replies: "Karl, why don't you write about the men's question?"
;););)

[9]

There is a famous story where Kautsky says to Luxemburg: "Rosa, why don't you write about the women's question?". Luxemburg replies: "Karl, why don't you write about the men's question?"

I don’t understand what is to be gained by denying or diminishing the role of social forms of oppression, though, which seems to be the function of this quote. YES, social oppression must necessarily be understood properly in the larger context of class, and YES an understanding of the primacy of class in oppression is essential. But that shouldn’t mean brushing over the significance of social oppression. The fact is, working class women are doubly oppressed, working class people who are also part of a regional and/or national “demographic-minority” which is subject to systemic discrimination on the basis of “social” identity are doubly oppressed. I don’t think acknowledging the significant role played by such “social” forms of oppression divides the working class, as is often the argument; on the contrary, I think disregarding and/or diminishing it does.
Which isn’t at all some kind of lecture to suggest that you or other left communists here haven't personally experienced oppression on an identity basis, as I think some here mistook a similar point someone made (tactlessly) earlier in this discussion to mean - just to be absolutely clear.

Also, I know you said a lot in your post so I hate to have only addressed this one small portion of it, but I think this quote is representative of a general attitude/trend among many left communists, which is why I single it out.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don’t understand what is to be gained by denying or diminishing the role of social forms of oppression, though, which seems to be the function of this quote. YES, social oppression must necessarily be understood properly in the larger context of class, and YES an understanding of the primacy of class in oppression is essential. But that shouldn’t mean brushing over the significance of social oppression. The fact is, working class women are doubly oppressed, working class people who are also part of a regional and/or national “demographic-minority” which is subject to systemic discrimination on the basis of “social” identity are doubly oppressed. I don’t think acknowledging the significant role played by such “social” forms of oppression divides the working class, as is often the argument; on the contrary, I think disregarding and/or diminishing it does.

[...]

Also, I know you said a lot in your post so I hate to have only addressed this one small portion of it, but I think this quote is representative of a general attitude/trend among many left communists, which is why I single it out.

I don't believe the denial of oppressions which exist in addition to (although never truely independant of) class relations is a tendency of the communist left, contrary to your claim. I would also contend that it is not the position of the communist left that "acknowledging the significant role played by such 'social' forms of oppression divides the working class". This is not our argument at all.

As I said earlier in this thread, the communist left does acknowledge the existance and significance of social oppressions including sexism, racism, heterosexism and religious discrimination.

Where the difference between communism and feminism (and other 'partial struggle' ideologies) comes in is in the question of how we can fight these social oppressions.

[Leo]

I don’t understand what is to be gained by denying or diminishing the role of social forms of oppression, though, which seems to be the function of this quote.

Well actually it has a sort of double meaning: the first point Rosa Luxemburg is making is that her being a woman does not make it necessary that she writes about the women's question instead of other theoretical questions and the second is that patriarchy is both a problem of men and also a problem most significantly continued by bourgeois men.

I don't think she is denying or dismissing the problem, she herself wrote about it later on as you linked to the article, of course not because Kautsky wanted her to.


YES, social oppression must necessarily be understood properly in the larger context of class, and YES an understanding of the primacy of class in oppression is essential.

OK, we are agreed here then.


But that shouldn’t mean brushing over the significance of social oppression. The fact is, working class women are doubly oppressed, working class people who are also part of a regional and/or national “demographic-minority” which is subject to systemic discrimination on the basis of “social” identity are doubly oppressed. I don’t think acknowledging the significant role played by such “social” forms of oppression divides the working class, as is often the argument; on the contrary, I think disregarding and/or diminishing it does.


I think the problem here arises from a sort of over-simplification of different sort of things. The problem with being a wage-slave is much more exploitation than oppression. This of course doesn't mean that the workers aren't abused, looked down upon or attacked by the bosses but that the central issue is exploitation.

The problem of oppression comes into the picture generally with national oppression, a systematic and in most cases violent mistreatment of members of a certain nationality generally by those of another, not only a state policy but now an ossified social disease inherent to capitalism. Under national oppression, a wage-slave is both exploited and is subjected to national oppression, but since the two issues are not exactly the same, neither the exploitation nor the oppression is necessarily doubled. Rather, the problem at the base remains exploitation and oppression is added to it. Obviously this national oppression obviously has a class basis since the lower sections of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation have more means to avoid being subjected to this oppression while the big bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation is not subjected to it at all, and the overwhelming force of the oppression is released upon the workers.

Patriarchy again is a situation not only different from the exploitation of a wage-slave but also from the oppression experienced by a proletarian of an oppression nationality. Patriarchy, I would say, is above all a problem of women being forced out into isolation, into separation from the society, into imprisonment in the household. Of course women are constantly abused, of course there is the issue of domestic violence, of course there is sexism, but patriarchy is more than all this, it is a bigger problem. There of course is a class basis to patriarchy also, with being much worse for working class women where big bourgeois women not only contribute in continuing capitalism but also help maintain patriarchy itself since at this point it is more profitable rather than harmful. For the woman workers, it is not a problem of double oppression, but of exploitation being added to (since patriarchy predates modern wage-slavery) isolation from society, imprisonment in the household.

In any case, we can say that a wage-slave is exploited even if he isn't particularly oppressed, we can also say that a woman worker is subjected to patriarchy even if she isn't particularly oppressed but we can't say that someone is nationally oppressed if he or she isn't particularly oppressed. Dubbing exploitation, patriarchy and national oppression all as parts of oppression I think is an oversimplification because it misses the point.

Of course we should not ever brush away the significance of these problems though, they have always been major problems of the workers' movement and they still are major problems of the working class, as well as of humanity in general.


Also, I know you said a lot in your post so I hate to have only addressed this one small portion of it, but I think this quote is representative of a general attitude/trend among many left communists, which is why I single it out.

No problem at all, I hope I managed to properly explain the left communist position in regards to the point you made.