We know that women are oppressed, but what is the role of the State in this oppression? And is there a gap between the analyses of the State by anarcha-feminists and marxist-feminists in regards to the oppression of women? And is this plausible gap as impossible to bridge as the gap between anarchists and marxists conserning the role of the State in the oppression of the working class?
We know that women are oppressed, but what is the role of the State in this oppression? The states does have an important role in oppressing women through legislation, especially in countries where the state limits access to or even bans abortion. However, the state is not an independent source of oppression, in the sense that the state is a projection of the class interests of the bourgeoisie, such that, in a workers state, women would not face oppression, because the state is not a universally oppressive structure - rather, the form and extent of state oppression depends on the class which controls the state. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, state power would be used to promote the objectives of women liberation, by changing laws concerning divorce proceedings (so that women would be able to access divorce on request) and through the provision of services such as childcare to ensure that women are not oppressed by the obligation to perform domestic tasks. Bolshevik Russia provides an example of how the state can be used as a force for womens liberation. Anarcho-Feminism (and arguably Anarchism in general) only makes sense if the state can be shown to be inherently oppressive, regardless of social context.
Anarcho-Feminism (and arguably Anarchism in general) only makes sense if the state can be shown to be inherently oppressive, regardless of social context. It is quite easy to show this. The state is an institution to prevent people from doing certain things, and forcing them to do other things. This is inherently oppressive. Yes, the state does oppress women as women as well. Directly, limiting social rights and so on, and indirectly, example by not providing for maternity leave.
It is quite easy to show this. The state is an institution to prevent people from doing certain things, and forcing them to do other things. This is inherently oppressive. Yes, the state does oppress women as women as well. Directly, limiting social rights and so on, and indirectly, example by not providing for maternity leave. How can the state be oppresive for the ruling class (or at least the rulers amongst the ruling class)? Isn't the state serving the ruling class, whereby one class dominates the other and the state would then be one of the instruments to do so?
Because I have a different definition of the state to you? But oh, you wanted an example of the state being "oppressive" to the "rulers" in the "ruling class"? Speeding Minister expects to lose licence More generally, the state forcibly takes money of everyone, not just the poor, thus the rich are "oppressed" in that regard too. (Not relevant to this thread, but I found it while finding the link above, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...14/2243872.htm )
To be more precise, I also want to know if anarcha-feminism sees the state as the root of oppression of women. An answer to this question can remove all the wrong views I might have on anarcha-feminism. Maybe I should have formulated it like this from the beginning. Because I have a different definition of the state to you? But oh, you wanted an example of the state being "oppressive" to the "rulers" in the "ruling class"? Speeding Minister expects to lose licence More generally, the state forcibly takes money of everyone, not just the poor, thus the rich are "oppressed" in that regard too. (Not relevant to this thread, but I found it while finding the link above, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...14/2243872.htm ) Those are not examples of repression . Those are examples of simple regulations not necessairly tied to a state. Even classless societies (will) need to have comparable rules. The ruling class benefits from the state as it is used to keep the masses down (1) while it also helps to regulate society (2) (because the wealthy, unequal and heavily populate societies we know since the beginning of private property of the means of production made it impossible for families to run the whole society). Oppression is an aspect, not the main feature of the state. Oppression was already their when 8.000 BC a rich bloke hired his neighbours to keep the poorer peasants away from his fields. I should add that I base myself on Engels's "the family, private property and the state", which also made it clear that the oppression of women even began before the 'creation' of the state.
As I understand it (though I am not an expert in "anarcho-feminist" theory), anarcho-feminists do not see the state as the sole or initial source of oppression of women. Most anarchists, would say that while the state is the single biggest source of oppression, the abolition of it will not get rid of racism, sexism or homophobia. Most anarchists would agree that the oppression of women occurred before the development of the modern state, and will need to be fought after the destruction of the state.
Oppression is an aspect, not the main feature of the state Oppression is the primary function of the state. The power of the state is projected through bodies of armed men (such as the army) which are able to use force against any threat to the property of the ruling class - thus the state is not an entity which exists independent of class relations, but is always a class structure, and a necessary component of bourgeois rule. The emergence of class antagonisms (arising from an agricultural surplus, which enabled a small group to survive without doing any work) directly led to the formation of states - because the state is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms (Lenin, SaR) If not "oppression" then what is the primary feature/function of the state? Yes, the state does oppress women as women as well. Directly, limiting social rights and so on, and indirectly, example by not providing for maternity leave. These forms of oppression are specific to the bourgeois state, are are derived from the class interests of the bourgeoisie, because the way in which state power is used depends on the class which controls the state. The workers state in Bolshevik Russia had a progressive role in the struggle against womens oppression.
Different definitions of the state much? But even in the USSR the state oppressed and discriminated against women as women. Women weren't allowed to fight on the front lines during war for example (I believe the airforce was different in this regard, but I could be wrong). And we all know about Stalin's crazy antics regarding abortion. (I'm not interested in yet another argument over which definition of the state is more useful, but needless to say, I, and most anarchists, contend that you can't have a "worker's state", you can only have people in control (who may have been workers at one point), who claim to rule on behalf of the workers. Similarly, the "bourgeois state" is not controlled by the bourgeois, but a small elite. This elite may rule mainly on behalf of the bourgeois, but they don't have to. Burma is a great example of a 1984esqu state. The generals rule on behalf of themselves.)
Even if the state is abolished (let's say the bourgeoisie lost power and soviets took control without a new structure replacing the old bourgeois-state), women might still be oppressed because the capitalist means of production are still there to be destroyed. The chaotic organisation of capitalist industry will still force many women to work long houres, while surplus value will still be created. It would take decades to create a society that's fully communist. That's why I believe we need a centralized and capable organ/structure to run society (closely connected with the soviets) in order to transform the capitalist means of production into socialist/communist means of production. While also the state should oppresse the local bourgeoisie (as long as capitalist means of production exist bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie will be 'created'). Oppression is the primary function of the state. The power of the state is projected through bodies of armed men (such as the army) which are able to use force against any threat to the property of the ruling class - thus the state is not an entity which exists independent of class relations, but is always a class structure, and a necessary component of bourgeois rule. The emergence of class antagonisms (arising from an agricultural surplus, which enabled a small group to survive without doing any work) directly led to the formation of states - because the state is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms (Lenin, SaR) If not "oppression" then what is the primary feature/function of the state? You're right. I was wrong; I made false conclusions from the history of private property and the state. But even in the USSR the state oppressed and discriminated against women as women. Women weren't allowed to fight on the front lines during war for example (I believe the airforce was different in this regard, but I could be wrong). And we all know about Stalin's crazy antics regarding abortion. Bobkindles wrote about the emancipation of women during a period when the state was founded with support of the soviets. I believe that the later oppression of women happened at the time when the state based itself on the bureaucracy. you can only have people in control (who may have been workers at one point), who claim to rule on behalf of the workers. Similarly, the "bourgeois state" is not controlled by the bourgeois, but a small elite. This elite may rule mainly on behalf of the bourgeois, but they don't have to. Burma is a great example of a 1984esqu state. The generals rule on behalf of themselves. I believe Birma is a police state, which uses the armed forces to surpress any revolt against the system. While it doesn't leave the bourgeoisie in control it still serves capitalism. Other states that don't fully serve the bourgeoisie are bonapartist states and fascist states. The only favorable state for the bourgeoisie is the bourgeois-democratic state. Also for women (and workers in general) the bourgeois-democratic state is more favorable, as it offers more space for them to struggle for rights, better wages, and so on.
I believe Birma is a police state, which uses the armed forces to surpress any revolt against the system. While it doesn't leave the bourgeoisie in control it still serves capitalism. Other states that don't fully serve the bourgeoisie are bonapartist states and fascist states. The only favorable state for the bourgeoisie is the bourgeois-democratic state. The Burmese state is still a bourgeois state, even if the state is comprised of persons who do not belong to the bourgeois class, because the state has created an environment in which the bourgeoisie are able to operate, by protecting property and denying workers the right to organize. The generals are a ruling stratum who use state power to access material benefits and retain political control - they are not a class because they do not own the means of production or derive income from the sale of commodities. The only favorable state for the bourgeoisie is the bourgeois-democratic state. In developing countries, the bourgeoisie is closely linked to and dependent on autocratic states, and so is not capable struggling for democratic reforms, such that these tasks can only be carried out by the proletariat, through an alliance with the peasantry, because the proletariat is numerically weak in countries suffering from underdevelopment. This means that a democratic state is not always the most favorable political system for the bourgeoisie, and so the proletariat should not rely on the bourgeois class to struggle for democracy, workers must organize independently. Burma is actually an interesting case-study for permanent revolution. But even in the USSR the state oppressed and discriminated against women as women. Women weren't allowed to fight on the front lines during war for example (I believe the airforce was different in this regard, but I could be wrong). And we all know about Stalin's crazy antics regarding abortion. The Soviet state exercised oppression against women following bureaucratic degeneration resulting in the emergence of a ruling stratum, which adopted a hegemony on political power - the proletarian state was progressive.
Wait, let's also remember that Marxism doesn't require a state, or at least in the form that we think of it today. Again, recall that the Paris Commune was partly led by Marxists and Marx himself wrote favorably of it. Thus, any distinction between marxist feminism and anarcha-feminism isn't necessarily one over the state, as we could be talking about a mouthful of libertarian marxist feminism. Nevertheless, I also cannot stand completely on the side of anarchists on this. There are certainly periods where womens (or youth, or LGBTQ) rights have been enforced by a state (though almost always through a myriad of forms of protest on the part of women and others). And whether we define a state as encompassing the Paris Commune, or any number of other examples is also in question.
