Karl Marx and Women

[Rakshas]

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx calls for the 'Abolition of Family'. I tried reading the manifesto many times, but could not make a much clearer interpretation. Though, Karl Marx said that women were doubly oppressed, by the the evils of capitalism and patriarchal society. What was his prescribed remedy? Please care to enlighten.

[diamond_rabbit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:30 AM
In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx calls for the 'Abolition of Family'. I tried reading the manifesto many times, but could not make a much clearer interpretation. Though, Karl Marx said that women were doubly oppressed, by the the evils of capitalism and patriarchal society. What was his prescribed remedy? Please care to enlighten.
i haven't read marx for a long time now... his ideas about the abolition of family are mixed in with many other critiques of family in my mind. but...

i think marx called for the abolition of family because he understood how the insitution of family is oppressive towards women. i think he understood that the family unit functions to support capitalism, and within this unit, patriarchal norms positions the husband as master and the wife as slave.

i'm not really sure what his ideas were in terms of new social arrangements to replace the old, but what an interesting topic. i have lots of ideas about this, inspired by feminist and queer positions. i look forward to reading posts of those who are more familiar with marx's ideas on the issue.

[Rakshas]

diamond_rabbit:

Thanks for expressing your views. I think your deduction is quite logical, that Marx saw Bourgeoisie family setup, as an institution of oppresion against women. The member of the bourgeoisie always treated his wife as 'private property' The role of the woman was just reduced to managing the household chores, bear children and be at her husband's (master') service everytime.

I think the idea of 'Community of women' as given in Manifesto is vague and open to many interpretations. So what conclusion can be deduced from the term 'Community of Women':

Question: Would women be treated as public property, with the sole purpose of providing sexual gratification to the members of the society?

Refutal:

For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.Emphasis added

I think, the concept of 'Community of women' is more of a social association of women, where they decide their priorities and ways of living, instead of getting married to some guy and playing a subservient role through out their lives. Does anyone agree?

[DisIllusion]

I always thought he meant that with free Communism would come somewhat of an utopia. Where you wouldn't have to rely on the people you were born to, instead, you could rely on everybody in society. Which is basically the definition of a Communist society.

[polemi-super-cised]

My reading of the Communist Manifesto, specifically, the section that concerns the "abolition of the family", is as follows. Marx and Engels see the "family" as a bourgeois institution (more generally, a "class-based" institution), that serves in our society only the interests of capital. When Communist society is established, these interests no longer exist - thus, the family in its current form disappears.

Hence the lines:


Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

... by the action of modern industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

... the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.


Marx and Engels correctly seek to understand the material interests represented by the "family structure" - concluding that exploitation and slavery exist here just as everywhere else. I'm not so sure that they supported the idea of totally abolishing the family; but it is clear that in its current form it will not survive the revolution.

Another thought: it is through learning from your parents that "conservatism" gains strength. Not necessarily "reaction"... But for children, parents are the most "natural" role models, and they will tend to reflect in their own personality the attitudes and beliefs of their parents, in later life. Thus, "yesterday" has a profound influence on "today" - society clings to the past. I, for one, think this state of affairs needs to be revised such that we look to the future!

[polemi-super-cised]

Oh, and this may be of some interest to you: "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/) (Frederick Engels, 1884)

It's rather lengthy, but good stuff. And "relevant"! :)

[Vanguard1917]

I think Marx and Engels's point in the Communist Manifesto is essentially that the capitalist sees his wife as a form of private property. The most interesting point they make is that, because communists call for an end to private property and the establishment of common ownership of the means of production, the capitalist naturally interprets this as also applying to women - precisely because he sees his wife as private property and as a means of production. I think that that's a very witty and astute observation (in my humble opinion, of course :)).

But do read the Engels book that polemi-super-cised linked below.

[Rakshas]

Thanks for your answers comrades. I really appreciate your contribution of your precious thoughts and time. One more question I have. One acquaintance has told me that both Marx and Engels were mysogenists of the worst kind. any thoughts on that? How can I refute him? Please help.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:10 AM
Thanks for your answers comrades. I really appreciate your contribution of your precious thoughts and time. One more question I have. One acquaintance has told me that both Marx and Engels were mysogenists of the worst kind. any thoughts on that? How can I refute him? Please help.
When people say things like that, one way to respond to them is to ask them on what grounds do they say that.

Chances are it's based on some casual remark by some bourgeois professor...without any evidence at all.

Meanwhile, it has to be remembered that Marx and Engels were 19th century men...who shared many of the assumptions of their era that we now regard as mistaken.

There are lots of examples of this.

It is Marx's methods of understanding the world in order to change it that we seek to emulate...not just some sort of mindless fealty to "whatever Marx said".

In the private correspondence between Marx and Engels, both of them said things that we now would consider racist, sexist, homophobic, and even pro-imperialist.

The "common opinions" of educated men of their era.

On the other hand, when they wrote down their serious views for publication, there is almost nothing of this reactionary content.

All of us are sometimes guilty of "speaking without thinking"...and Marx and Engels were no exception.

Some people like to take some example of our casual nonsense and say, in effect, that "this" shows what we "really think".

While ignoring the content of what we said when we had time to seriously think the matter through and carefully consider the rational options.

These are people who are simply trying to "make us look bad"...and there are certainly plenty of bourgeois ideologues who try their best to make Marx and Engels "look bad".

Without a whole lot of success. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Marxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:26 AM
I always thought he meant that with free Communism would come somewhat of an utopia. Where you wouldn't have to rely on the people you were born to, instead, you could rely on everybody in society. Which is basically the definition of a Communist society.
that´s what communism is about! :)