Did Marx Really Say This?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, I was looking for a specific quote but then came across this:



Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.


Did he really say that? And what was the context if he did? What is that even supposed to mean

[Creative Destruction]

It comes from this correspondence:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_12-abs.htm

If you wanted to be generous (though there seems no reason to be), he might've been saying it sarcastically. However, this bothered me more:


Tell your wife I never suspected her of being one of Generaless Geck's subordinates. My question was only intended as a joke. In any case ladies cannot complain of the International, for it has elected a lady, Madame Law, to be a member of the General Council.

This is the same argument used by white people to say that black folks shouldn't complain anymore about racism. Although, I am not sure of the context of that remark, it's not usually used in any other context other than to dismiss charges of sexism, racism, etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

rednoise, read the next sentence: all joking aside.

[Redistribute the Rep]

rednoise, read the next sentence: all joking aside.

Yea, I read it the way he did the first time, but now I suspect that was sarcasm. Anyway, the other jokes like him ostensibly calling engels wife someone's subordinate and the ugly comment just seem inappropriate

[Slavic]

rednoise, read the next sentence: all joking aside.

They didn't have :rolleyes: back then so its hard to get if something is sarcastic or ironic.

Marx should have used more emojjis. Would have made Capital more enjoyable.

[Igor]

those are not very good jokes marx

[Tim Redd]

Marx forged some powerful revolutionary social theory, but there's no need therefore to take all the rest.

[RedWorker]

About the OP: Maybe it means that while rich, "beautiful" women may have been more powerful in history, this is irrelevant when considering the social position of the female sex.


This is the same argument used by white people to say that black folks shouldn't complain anymore about racism. Although, I am not sure of the context of that remark, it's not usually used in any other context other than to dismiss charges of sexism, racism, etc.

Except he isn't making this argument at all, it's just an expression like someone really wanted to eat a pepperoni pizza and then you say: "Hey, I put pepperoni in your pizza, you can't complain!" Basically he's saying that he's glad that a woman got elected and progress is being made in this area. If Marx had this type of thinking, then it would be expressed in more than one sentence in his whole works.


Yea, I read it the way he did the first time, but now I suspect that was sarcasm. Anyway, the other jokes like him ostensibly calling engels wife someone's subordinate and the ugly comment just seem inappropriate

Ok, so I don't know the context, but is Lenin calling someone, I don't know, "Bernstein's subordinate" sexist?

[RedMaterialist]

Well, I was looking for a specific quote but then came across this:



Did he really say that? And what was the context if he did? What is that even supposed to mean

Well, he had a wife, three daughters, a housekeeper, and various servants. The Marx household often hosted meetings with other radicals, some of whom almost certainly were women. It is well known that Marx believed Jenny was very beautiful. He must have meant it as a kind of joke: The Fair Sex and the Part Not so Fair will be part of the revolution. It does sound bourgeois and vulgar.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm pretty sure the clause "the ugly ones included" was a dig at the "gallant French".

"Generaless Fop" was the wife of a German bourgeois democrat, who wanted women to join the IWMA (which Marx supported, and which the IWMA rules permitted) so they can steer it in the direction of bourgeois democracy (which Marx did not support for obvious reasons). Marx was telling Engels that his wife (that is, Engels's wife) misunderstood a joke by Marx.

Honestly I find the statement about Dietzgen to be a lot more worrying that Marx's endless sarcasm.

[consuming negativity]

well, if those jokes piss you off...


“Confessions” were semi-jocular questionaires that were very popular in Victorian England, and filling them out a common passtime in many families, including Marx's, where friends and relatives particpated. A number of versions of Confessions belonging to Marx have been preserved.


The Quality you like best: Simplicity
In man: Strength
In Woman: Weaknesshttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/04/01.htm

[G4b3n]

It only seems like this would be a problem for the dogmatists who regard his word as law.
Yes, it was inappropriate and his statement about women in the international shows a complete failure of analysis. This is why we take what is important and disregard the nonsense.

[synthesis]

Well, I was looking for a specific quote but then came across this:



Did he really say that? And what was the context if he did? What is that even supposed to mean

If we're trying to make him come across as sympathetic and not a dick, I always looked at that statement as basically saying that you can't just point to, like, a Playboy model and say, "Well, she's doing well, so feminism must be unnecessary." It seems to me like a response to the statement - I hate even paraphrasing it here - that "feminism is only for unattractive women." (As nice as it would be to pretend that people don't still think like that.)

[Zukunftsmusik]

Marx should have used more emojjis. Would have made Capital more enjoyable.

Marx, sarcastic genius as he was, didn't need emojis. In fact, all he needed was exclamation- and question marks:


[...]This 'man of learning' [...] continues on the same subject: 'Ricardo's school is in the habit of including capital as accumulated labour under the heading of labour. This is unskillful (!), because (!) indeed the owner of capital (!) has after all (!) done more than merely (!?) create (?) and preserve (??) the same (what same?): namely (?!?) the abstention from the enjoyment of it, in return for which he demands, for instance (!!!) interest' (ibid. [p.82]). How very 'skilful' is this 'anatomico-physiological method' of political economy, which converts a mere 'demand' into a source of value!

[Slavic]

Marx, sarcastic genius as he was, didn't need emojis. In fact, all he needed was exclamation- and question marks:

Early emojis sucked. Makes you sound like a mad man.