Socialism feminism is a popular trend among the petty bourgeois women’s liberation movement that split from the “new left” and various other liberation struggles of the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. Socialist feminists are not a consolidated group but rather various groups whose common unities are the criticisms of what they call the Marxist movement and the feminist movement.
The socialist feminist view of Marxism is that it does not speak to the oppression of women but merely concerns itself with things that “relate directly to the productive process.” Many view “orthodox Marxism” as an outdated product of 19th century capitalism that has traditionally been insensitive to women’s needs and struggles only to improve the economic conditions of workers.
Feminism, on the other hand, is seen as a response to the inequality of the sexes that exists to some degree in all societies. Socialist feminists see that feminism exposes the oppression of women by men the same way that they see Marxism exposing the class nature of society. Feminism, however, is aimed only at men, ignoring what socialist feminists consider the “other” enemy of women, the capitalist system. Socialist feminists borrow much of radical feminist analysis, some of which can be seen in the analysis of the origin of women’s oppression.
Socialist feminists submit that both imperialism and the patriarchy are the enemies of women. The term patriarchy is used synomynously with male supremacy. They separate the oppression of women from its material basis by claiming that it is rooted in something more than the development of private property and the division of society into classes.
The inequality of the sexes is seen as something timeless and universal with a “history of its own.” To some socialist feminists, male dominance has its roots in the biological inequality of men and women: men are stronger and innately violent and this fact of male violence is the root of male supremacy. Others put forward that they don’t know where sexism comes from and that such a determination is unnecessary. In the main, socialist feminists accept the existence of sexism and see it as a struggle for power between men and women.
Although socialist feminists don’t see imperialism as the main enemy of women, they do see that the forms that male dominance takes depends upon the historical period. In other words, the oppression of women that existed under slavery, and feudalism is fundamentally different from the oppression of women under capitalism. To socialist feminists, therefore, it is necessary to put sexism into the historical context of capitalism.
Socialist feminists see that the existence of sexism is used by the ruling class to keep the working class divided. In this way, the ruling class benefits from man’s desire to have power over women. Furthermore, the capitalist system is itself seen as sexist in its exercise of control over society. This sexism is manifested in such things as cut backs of women’s study programs, lack of childcare facilities, and the denial of the right to a safe and free abortion. Because of this, socialist feminists see that in addition to the patriarchy, the capitalist system is the enemy of women. They, therefore, seek to combine a theory of capitalism and the patriarchy because in their words, “women are subject to a social system that is both patriarchal and capitalist.” Furthermore, they assert that “an analysis that does not incorporate the interlocking of capitalism and the patriarchy cannot help us to understand or to change the position of women or the basic structure of society.”
In essence, socialist feminists reject the fact that the women’s question is a class question. They see the struggle against sexism as “co-equal” with the class struggle. One socialist feminist, Carol Brown, says, “To think of the struggle of the sexes as secondary to the ’real’ class struggle is merely to take the patriarchal belief that women are secondary and turn it into a pseudo-scientific theory.” What they’re actually saying is that if the women’s question isn’t primary, it’s being liquidated. This leads to the line of women as the vanguard, seeing the struggle for socialism as auxiliary.
Socialist feminists also recognize that oppressed people do have a common enemy in imperialism: workers are oppressed by imperialism by the extraction of surplus value from their labor; nationalities are oppressed by the racism of the system in much the same way as women are oppressed by its sexism. To socialist feminists, however, the struggles against racism, sexism and what they call, “classism”, are basically struggles for power between men and women, people of different nationalities and the working class and the bourgeoisie. They see no material connection between the various types of oppression. This leads them to conclude that there is a need for separate and autonomous movements. Since ending the oppression of women is not directly in the interest of the working class, socialist feminists assert that the only way their interests will be protected is through their own autonomous women’s movement.
This line reduces itself to the liquidation of the class struggle as something that affects those “outside” of their movement against women’s oppression. Oppressed nationality and working class women are welcome in their women’s movement only if they consciously choose to separate their oppression as women from their oppression as oppressed nationalities and workers. They must also agree that the women’s question is their priority. Some socialist feminists go even farther and say that since women are in the majority, and the best organized, that they should play a vanguard role in other movements, although autonomous, will eventually follow their lead. They do not see the need for a vanguard party, nor do they recognize the leading role of the working class.
Many socialist feminists also uphold that the family is the institution of capitalism where the oppression of women is focussed. The family, according to this analysis, provides children of undisputed paternity to allow for inheritance of wealth through the lineage of men and serves as an instrument of class rule by propagating bourgeois ideology. It also has become a supplementary instrument in the hands of the ruling class to rob the working class and women. The family, according to socialist feminists, enforces what they call the “sexual division of production between the home and the workplace.” This division, they say, puts the burden of providing for the individual members on the family and not on society where it belongs. By relieving the capitalist of all social responsibility for the welfare of the worker, the family “dumps heavy economic burdens upon the poor”, in the form of family obligations.
The work done within the family, mostly by women, is according to socialist feminists, “unpaid labor.” Because it is unpaid, it is seen as inferior by society; because it is usually women who perform this work, women themselves are seen as inferior. This inferiority follows women throughout society, including the workplace, where they are paid less and fired first. This leads socialist feminists to call for the destruction of the family or for wages for housework.
This analysis of the family does not make any distinctions between bourgeois family relations and proletarian family relations. Engels clearly states that within a proletarian marriage “all the foundations of typical monogamy are cleared away, there is no property, for the preservation and inheritance of which monogamy and male supremacy were established.” He concludes from this there is “no incentive to make this male supremacy effective.” By focussing in on the functions of the family that serve the interest of the bourgeoisie they liquidate the positive aspects of the family. Also, by calling for wages for housework, they are advocating a perpetuation of the drudgery of housework and women’s oppression.
A further fact ignored by socialist feminists is that the subsistence wages given the male worker includes the subsistence of his family. This is not to say that women’s work within the family is “unpaid labor” because labor is a scientific term used to describe the work that is added to raw materials to make a commodity. Since within the family there is no production of commodities, the work in the home is not labor.
Socialist feminists do put forward that full liberation cannot exist for women within a capitalist society, not because class society and private property are the material basis for the oppression of women, but rather because, imperialism uses and distorts any reform designed to alleviate the oppression of women. Their analysis seems to indicate that they see imperialism more as an obstacle to their primary struggle against the patriarchy. Many, however will not agree with this characterization.
Socialism is the alternative proposed. Their view of socialism, however, is Utopian. They see socialism not as the dictatorship of the proletariat, but as the elimination of what they call the hierarchy of society. Socialism, they say, is a social system where decisions are made collectively. “Collectivity” is seen as a feminist alternative to capitalism because it is the negation of the male principle of “competition” which they see as the driving force of capitalism. Thus, socialism is seen as the triumph of women over both of their enemies, the patriarchy and imperialism.
In the main, this position vacillates between that of men as the enemy and imperialism as the enemy. Their tactics inevitably reflect this vacillation. Some socialist feminists choose to work on alternative institutions based on the female principle; others will join anti-imperialist organizations, such as the Lawyers Guild, but within those organizations will focus primarily on the woman question. Many times, however, socialist feminists will combine the struggle for legal reforms and the struggle for alternative institutions. Unlike radical feminists, socialist feminists tend to rely more on the state. This is reflected in their stand on the ERA. which is one of their main demands.
In theory, socialist feminists purport to uphold the necessity of unity between men and women. They deny that men are the enemy, insisting that it is the patriarchy and imperialism that are the main enemies of women. They further insist that men are “potential” allies. They don’t however recognize that the woman question affects the working class as a whole, both men and women. This leads to a “distrust” of men which is reflected in their practice.
Socialist feminists also uphold that there is a complicity between men and the capitalist system for their mutual benefit. Sexism is seen as a struggle of the sexes, whereby men benefit from their oppression of women. This leads to the position that men have an interest in maintaining capitalism. In essence, this position is the same as radical feminism that identifies men as the enemy.
The demands and reforms struggled around tend to focus in on reliance on the state. Thus, socialist feminism supports the ERA and wages for housework. With the ERA they depend on the state to grant women equality; in the case of wages for housework, the situation is even more absurd. First of all they contend that the capitalist system cannot exist without the “unpaid labor” of the housewife. They then ask that system to commit suicide by demanding from it wages for housework.
Discussion was raised about the issue that socialist feminists put forward concerning “wages for housework”. The initial discussion centered around whether or not housework was “social production” or whether or not housework produced “value” etc. e.g. socially necessary labor time. Some concluded that from the perspective of political economy, categories like “surplus value”, “wages”, etc. did not apply to areas where the work done was for private purposes, individual needs, etc.
It was then pointed out that this argument about political economy did not grasp the essence of why “wages for housework” is an incorrect demand. It was concluded that primarily this demand is reactionary because it accepts the effects of capitalism and attempts to reconcile women with the idea of domestic slavery with a few dollars as crumbs thrown in the deal. This demand, moreover, keeps the focus of the struggle on the family rather than on the capitalist system.
The main task as Lenin and Engels point out is to draw women into socially productive labor, to remove them from the stultifying and humiliating resignation to household slave labor, and to provide women with the material basis to enter into class struggle directly and more fully into political life. It was also raised that conscious forces, rather than accepting women’s role in the home, should urge that men and women take an equal part in household tasks to free women up to do political work, etc. To hold women back is to severely weaken the struggle.
It was put forward that even some “communist” organizations, like the CP-OL take this socialist feminist stand and talk about “women performing large amounts of unpaid labor which benefits the capitalists” and so on.
It must be remembered that women will never achieve complete equality in the home or workplace or their full emancipation under capitalism. It was stressed that under socialism the family will no longer be the economic unit of society, and many of the family tasks will be socialized, e.g. child care, preparation of food, etc., thus allowing all women to join in productive labor and become full members of society.
It was pointed out that socialism feminism, fundamentally reflects bourgeois ideology and the social relations under capitalism by viewing liberation from the perspective of self-interest. Socialist feminists put their struggle for emancipation as co-equal with that of the working class and they first and foremost require that the revolutionary movement guarantee the demands that they put forward. This is basically a petty-bourgeois empiricist view which strives to put its own struggle first on the agenda. Socialism feminism fails, in the first instance, to look to the benefit of the interests of working and oppressed people as a whole.
One participant suggested that socialism feminism be seen as social democratic feminism. Social, because it recognizes class struggle. Social democratic because of its essential reformism. In all it is revisionism of Marxism; it phrase mongers about “orthodox Marxism” and then leeches off it.
A last point made in this discussion was that we should keep in mind that when viewing the overall struggle for socialism, that male chauvinism is the greater danger with feminism being a secondary danger. (COReS would add that concilliation to male chauvinism is the secondary danger within most Marxist Leninist organizations and mass working class organizations.)