Claudia Jones--"Complete emancipation of women is possible only under Socialism."

[Starry Messenger]

http://rosicrucian1970.blogspot.com/2012/06/claudia-jones-complete-emancipation-of.html

My new blog entry is finally out, I hope you enjoy the writing of this remarkable woman as much as I do. A little preview here:

Failure to recognize the special social disabilities of women under capitalism is one of the chief manifestations of male supremacy. These special forms of oppression particularly affect the working women, the farm women and the triply oppressed Negro women,- but, in varying degrees, they help to determine the inferior status of women in all classes of society.

<snip>

"Overcoming these male supremacist notions means to recognize moreover that our Party, as distinct from those who hold petty-bourgeois equalitarian notions, fights for the true equality of women. What does it mean? It means fighting for the right of women to enjoy every right and privilege enjoyed by men. Many shout equality in general, but in practice show lack of understanding of the special aspects of equality. The petty bourgeois equalitarian denies the special problems and needs of women. True recognition of the special aspects of equality for women means fighting to squeeze out every concession right here under capitalism relative to fighting women's numerous disabilities and inequalities in the home, on the job, in the community.

[snot]

1. Interesting.

But apart from the fact that it's to the advantage of any unfairly dominant group to "divide and conquer" factions among the rest of society regardless of what the divisions are based on, I don't quite see why liberation of women is more of a logical necessity under socialism than under capitalism.

Indeed, it seems to me advantageous to capitalists to increase the pool of potential labor for hire by including women and other constituencies, so there will be more competition among them for jobs, reducing any pressure for wage increases.

And the post you refer to in itself seems to contradict the idea that women's liberation is really inherently more necessary or natural under socialism, insofar as it seems to document that there was in actual practice considerable resistance to women's lib within the socialist movement.

I don't mean to say the thesis is necessarily completely wrong; it just seems to me that there are countervailing tendencies, and how it all works together to produce the actual results we see is not entirely clear.

[socialist_n_TN]

2. The liberation of women under socialism.........

is in the same category as the liberation of other oppressed minorities under socialism. The basis of the oppression is economic. A chauvanist, like the racist, only has power insofar as he has control over the economic welfare of the oppressed. When that power over economic well being is erased under socialism, it becomes merely a personal bias with no power to control or harm.

As to the "considerable resistance to women's lib within the socialist movement", I'm not sure that was actually very widespread. Women have ALWAYS paid a large part in the socialist movement from it's inception. And to the extent that there WAS some "resistance", it must also be taken in context with the times. Even Marx thought capitalism was an advance over feudalism, like feudlism was an advance over slave owning culture. Ergo, a movement that gave a more equal treatment to women COMPARED to the surrounding culture was progress. Which was the case with women and socialism in the early part of the movement.

Of course at this point, ANY differential in treatment between men and women (as between black, white, Latino, Jewish, etc.) is categorically wrong and is definitely NOT progress. Ideas alone today should differentiate between good and bad for the movement, NOT who came up with the ideas.

[snot]

3. Ok, that helps . . .

but I'm still a little unclear . . .

E.g., capitalism, at least as I understand it in the US, claims to be based on merit, competition, and the like; e.g., theoretically, if a woman does a job as well or better as a man, she should be rewarded as well; viz., those who try to deny inequality are always careful to blame the unequal pay on factors other than merit (e.g., that women are for whatever reason more free to choose the option of taking time out from careers for child-rearing, etc.).

I do believe, of course, that despite the theory, unfair inequality nonetheless persists under capitalism, however, because it advantages men. And that seems to me no less the case under socialism. While socialism may theoretically seek to erase unfair power over the economic welfare of everyone just as capitalism may theoretically seek to create level playing fields in which merit can emerge and everyone has an equal chance to be President, in practice, in the shorter run, men may still be advantaged to the extent women and minorities are disadvantaged (just as economic elites tend to cling to their advantages).

Even if you take economic rewards completely out of the picture, so that every individual enjoyed the exact same material standard of living regardless of their role, it's still gratifying, or not, to get to do the work you want to do, or not; to have a role that doesn't involve cleaning toilets, or that seems more central or important in some way; and it's hard to eliminate that kind of inequality unless you're going to fill roles lottery, or make literally make every single decision by a "general assembly"-type process, both of which are pretty unworkable.

(I hope you realize, I mean all this in the spirit of friendly discussion; I do believe we'd be better off adopting socialist-type approaches w.r.t. at least some kinds of functions; and I'm a feminist. But I'm still struggling re- the question of any logical reason why socialism might tend more than other systems to reduce chauvinisms.)

[Starry Messenger]

4. The essence of capitalism is inequality-

Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2012, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

All those things about merit, etc. never bear out, especially when the system is under strain or crisis. Even when capitalism is functioning "normally"-exploitation is the bedrock of wealth gathering. One group sells their time to another group. Inequality exists under capitalism, not because it advantages men, but because it advantages the wealthy. Socialism doesn't so much "erase" unfair power, as it seeks to undo the conditions that lead to unfair power. How this is done depends on what is already happening in the theoretical country that might be under discussion.

It is completely true that women can still suffer from inequality under socialism. But socialist systems tend to structure in better affirmative action programs, enlarge education possibilities for women, bring wages for women up to those of men in similar fields, etc.

We can also do these things in a capitalist society, and what Jones is writing is that it is important when you are living as a socialist in a capitalist country, that you struggle to keep women's issues in the forefront, to get as much as you can out of a limited system. But keeping in mind that under capitalism that anything you achieve will be at threat of constant erosion. We always exist doubly oppressed under capitalism, and triply oppressed when one is not white. There is a tendency when an organization in a capitalist society is just looking at one sector of oppression, on the working person, to forget that there are workers who are not male, who struggle with different issues, on top of the ones that already exist in basic exploitation.

Even if you take economic rewards completely out of the picture, so that every individual enjoyed the exact same material standard of living regardless of their role, it's still gratifying, or not, to get to do the work you want to do, or not; to have a role that doesn't involve cleaning toilets, or that seems more central or important in some way; and it's hard to eliminate that kind of inequality unless you're going to fill roles lottery, or make literally make every single decision by a "general assembly"-type process, both of which are pretty unworkable.

That isn't how socialist societies are constructed. There are economic rewards, there just isn't capitalism (sometimes there is small business). The conditions that lead to corporations and bloated wealth are eliminated though, by law. Along with the elimination of monopoly conditions come the gradual elimination of the conditions that lead to racial and sexist inequality, by law, and by making sure women and minorities are included in all decision making processes in government, by law.

[snot]

5. Thanks, that fills in the picture very well. I hope others are benefitting from this discussion,

as I am!

[Starry Messenger]

6. I am too!

[TBF]

7. Finally, time on Sunday morning to read the entire blog -

and I very much enjoyed it.

I especially loved this paragraph:

"Under capitalism, the inequality of women stems from exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. But the exploitation of women cuts across class lines and affects all women. Marxism-Leninism views the woman question as a special question which derives from the economic dependence of women upon men. This economic dependence as Engels wrote over 100 years ago, carries with it the sexual exploitation of women, the placing of woman in the modern bourgeois family, as the proletariat' of the man, who assumes the role of 'bourgeoisie.'

I was told yesterday by another communist that women's issues are "social issues" and therefore not "substantive", and frankly that makes his view of the world just as warped as any Teabaggerati I have the misfortune to come across. It is imperative that we rid this world of capitalism, but to consider women's economic issues as less important is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. If anything, women around the world are doubly abused - oppressed by both our economic system and the men we deal with.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. Well, I'm not sure I would have phrased it that way.........

. However, they ARE social issues in that they aren't the primary focus (as always, IMO), in Marxist thought. So in a meta sense, it is along the lines of a social issue, an issue that would be solved with a socialist system where no one had the power to oppress anyone else by having control over the livelihood of the oppressed. As I said in the above post, if the economic power were taken away, any chauvanism or racism would be in the nature of a personal bias and without any consequence other than the emotional (he/she doesn't like me because I'm a woman, black, Latino, etc.)

All that said, we don't always live in the meta. And in the here and now and day to day, there IS "extra" bias against women, people of color, and most especially, minority women. So to me, as a socialist, that needs to be addressed. As long as you continue to keep the meta context in mind, I don't think that there's any problem putting extra emphasis on that "extra" bias. As a tactic and even a strategy, it's important for Marxists to be seen as being one the side of the oppressed.

One thing I've taken away from Trotsky's tendency and writings through the years is his emphasis on being on the side of the oppressed. If you're on the side of the oppressed, it would be just logical to acknowledge the MOST oppressed and their special problems in the day to day.

[TBF]

9. Agree re minority women -

when you are battling capitalism, along with sexism and racism on a daily basis, I think it is natural to want to work on eliminating the effects of those biases as you work towards the larger goal of a complete socialist society (ie we can walk and chew gum at the same time sort of thing).

This came up in the context of discussing the ACA - while acknowledging there are several serious problems with that act - the fact that day to day there are some real advantages for all who have "pre-existing conditions" and will now be able to get coverage, and that women can no longer be charged more for coverage simply because they are female - these are wins. Small battle wins to be sure, not the larger victory, but it's nice to see a few people kept alive here and there as we trudge on.

[Starry Messenger]

10. Aren't anti-capitalistic economic issues also social issues?

Isn't that why it's called "Socialism"?

"Under capitalism, the inequality of women stems from exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. But the exploitation of women cuts across class lines and affects all women. Marxism-Leninism views the woman question as a special question which derives from the economic dependence of women upon men. This economic dependence as Engels wrote over 100 years ago, carries with it the sexual exploitation of women, the placing of woman in the modern bourgeois family, as the proletariat' of the man, who assumes the role of 'bourgeoisie.'

This is an important point, because women (and their offspring) were one of the first forms of private property (along with cattle herds). We've suffered from being economically deprived and behind ever since, in a form of primitive accumulation of our own labor and potential wealth that is still going on to this day. Oppressing us is what helps make capitalism work. I'm not sure how that can just be hand-waved away. That's a "substantive" issue that needs to be dealt with. Engels certainly thought so, since he devoted an entire book on the rise of the family throughout history, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02c.htm

Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. But that it did take place is more than sufficiently proved by the abundant traces of mother-right which have been collected, particularly by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished can be seen in a whole series of American Indian tribes, where it has only recently taken place and is still taking place under the influence, partly of increasing wealth and a changed mode of life (transference from forest to prairie), and partly of the moral pressure of civilization and missionaries. Of eight Missouri tribes, six observe the male line of descent and inheritance, two still observe the female. Among the Shawnees, Miamis and Delawares the custom has grown up of giving the children a gentile name of their father's gens in order to transfer them into it, thus enabling them to inherit from him.

Man's innate casuistry! To change things by changing their names! And to find loopholes for violating tradition while maintaining tradition, when direct interest supplied sufficient impulse. (Marx.)

The result was hopeless confusion, which could only be remedied and to a certain extent was remedied by the transition to father-right. “In general, this seems to be the most natural transition.” (Marx.) For the theories proffered by comparative jurisprudence regarding the manner in which this change was effected among the civilized peoples of the Old World – though they are almost pure hypotheses see M. Kovalevsky, Tableau des origines et de l'evolution de la famille et de la propriete. Stockholm, 1890.

The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. This degraded position of the woman, especially conspicuous among the Greeks of the heroic and still more of the classical age, has gradually been palliated and glozed over, and sometimes clothed in a milder form; in no sense has it been abolished.

The establishment of the exclusive supremacy of the man shows its effects first in the patriarchal family, which now emerges as an intermediate form. Its essential characteristic is not polygyny, of which more later, but “the organization of a number of persons, bond and free, into a family, under paternal power, for the purpose of holding lands, and for the care of flocks and herds.... (In the Semitic form) the chiefs, at least, lived in polygamy.... Those held to servitude, and those employed as servants, lived in the marriage relation.” {Morgan, op. cit., p. 474}

That whole book is great.

The special problems of women are Communist issues. I'm going to have to disagree with the guy who calls himself a communist who said that they were "social issues", by which I'm guessing he means mere petty bourgeois bagatelles to more important things that concern "serious men" like him.

edit: Thank you for reading the blog!

One more edit, sorry. I thought this quote was apropos:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

Our jurists, of course, find that progress in legislation is leaving women with no further ground of complaint. Modern civilized systems of law increasingly acknowledge, first, that for a marriage to be legal, it must be a contract freely entered into by both partners, and, secondly, that also in the married state both partners must stand on a common footing of equal rights and duties. If both these demands are consistently carried out, say the jurists, women have all they can ask.

This typically legalist method of argument is exactly the same as that which the radical republican bourgeois uses to put the proletarian in his place. Origin of the Family, Ch. 2, Frederick Engels

[limpyhobbler]

11. Very cool.

I had never even heard of Claudia Jones so I found the whole piece very interesting and educational, as well as the whole thread, with the bits from Engels.

[limpyhobbler]

12. So here is a question about capitalism and patriarchy...

Capitalism developed in a patriarchal world. Guessing if you checked the boards of directors and CEO's of major corporations, women are outnumbered maybe 10 to 1.

We have seen some explanations of how capitalism leads to oppression of women. But does it works the other way too? Does the continuation of the capitalist system require some exclusion of women from the ruling class of decision makers?

In other words, if women were in more positions of real power, even the majority in those positions, would it be easier to move toward socialism?

Would that be sexist? Because it implies that women are different in temperament. Like maybe they are less greedy, or less violent, or more inclined to cooperation instead of competition.

I kind of think it seems true, but don't know if that is just due to cultural conditioning. If we undermine patriarchy, are we helping to undermine capitalism? Or will women in positions of power be just as greedy, violent, etc?

[Starry Messenger]

13. I think if we had more progressive women in positions of political power

it would be easier to move towards socialism. Or at least keep some of the advances for women from eroding at the pace that they are. I don't think it's a matter of sexism to say so in that sense. Not taking a whack at progressive men at all, but sometimes a personal feminine experience in the matters under discussion makes a bigger impact on the nation. Jackie Speiers relating her experiences with abortion and the female politicians that have made challenging stands on other aspects of women's health.

I can tell you as a woman that I feel like I have more of a voice in politics when I see elected women taking public stands. I think more women feel more mobilized when they see the same things.

I think that there are some women who think that even if Sarah Palins of the world got into office, that would be an advance for women--but I would guess that she would actually put women back in the Stone Ages. A woman that has a ruling class orientation isn't really going to advance the interests of our class.

And in the same vein, I don't know that seeing more women in CEO positions advances a left wing agenda just by itself. But progressive women capitalists might donate to progressive causes and female candidates. Given that unfortunately the only real path to power in the US must now be paved with gobs of cash, we workers need to exploit any divisions that might occur among the ownership class and weaken their hegemony. An all male conservative ownership class leads to less dissension in their ranks, and is more difficult for us to exploit. And given that many male CEOs were against the rising power of women in their class, and there are still very few women in executive positions--I'd say that this group still sees women in their ranks as a threat.

Does that make any sense?

[limpyhobbler]

14. ya I think so

It tends to help but not automatically. Women bring different experiences from men so it helps broaden the debate. There is some morale boost to see them in power. But a woman working for the same old paymasters is no help for the working class. More women as upper business chiefs could possibly shake up the scene and create some weaknesses for the 1%. Undermining patriarchy might tend to help a progressive agenda but it also depends more specifically on who and what we are talking about.

[TBF]

15. Yes, except the idea that you'll find many progressive women in positions of power

I ended up attending board room meetings at one point of my career simply be being high enough up in a legal administrator position. I was there because I had been made secretary of the corporation and it's subsidiaries (this was a NASDAQ company), and my position involved keeping the official minutes. My view from that experience is that you are going to be hard-pressed to find progressive women in the board room simply because getting to that point typically means you've done everything you've needed to do in proving to the corporation you are management material (meaning you've no doubt stepped on workers along the way). I could see it possibly happening in the newer internet type companies but I can't see it being widespread.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Yeah, as I was typing through my thoughts-

I began thinking that the nature of big business is going to attract the Meg Whitmans of the world more than not. Silicon Valley seems pretty male too. We'd have to look at donation patterns of women in business to see what actually happens in reality. I don't know if lists are kept like that or not. It's probably a pretty tiny number!

I think the underpinnings of this whole train of thought are "Is capitalism a product of patriarchy? Or is patriarchy a product of capitalism?" Marx and Engels demonstrated persuasively (imo) that patriarchy is a product of capitalism (starting with the rise of private property). Other strands of feminism believe that capitalism is the product of patriarchy. Depending on what viewpoint you take, this can lead to radically different ways of tackling the problems of women's oppression.

I think the latter strand leads to a "trickle down" strategy that hopes many/more women in positions of power will eventually bring gains to all women and therefore this is prioritized. This strategy depends on a idealized view of women, like one limpyhobbler mentions, that women are naturally "better" somehow and will leaven the loaf of patriarchy by just being there in power. We can see that this doesn't necessarily pan out in reality.

The Marxist approach is more "trickle-up": you identify the most oppressed sectors of society, usually women, and as Claudia pinpointed, Black working women especially, and work to support and liberate the the vulnerable. This will translate into real gains for Black women, freeing them more to become involved politically and be able to survive and thrive, and will also have a ripple effect of supporting the wider sector of working people in general, women in general.

[limpyhobbler]

17. Seems like a good answer.

A system that truly values equality and freedom will help liberate all oppressed groups, including those defined by race and gender.

I guess integrating women into the corporate capitalist class may have some marginal good effects. Or integration might be a good thing in itself, without having to justify it in terms of anti-capitalism or whatever. But so far we don't see it really presenting a serious challenge to the capitalist order, because the system selects people who agree with it for positions of power.

[HiPointDem]

18. The colonial experience leads me to believe that except for the "morale" factor there's not much

likelihood that having more minority faces in power will change anything fundamental. Not that having more minority faces isn't a positive good in itself -- but capitalism isn't premised on oppression of women, or minorities -- only on oppression of "someone". all the roles and players can change and the system can still go merrily along without a hitch.

Long history of colonial compradors in power and in league with the colonizers -- and similarly under post-colonial rule at a distance.

I see the increased representation of women and other minorities playing out in much the same way.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. This is my view also........

The only thing I might change is "--only on the oppression of 'someone'" I would change it to the oppression of EVERYONE. Eventually, capitalism evolves to the point of capitalists oppressing other capitalists because it's designed to funnel wealth upwards. IOW, it's ultimately based on the oppression of everyone but the top dog.

The system really is like a game of Monopoly and you only "win" at Monopoly when everyone else is bankrupted.

However, in the here and now, people who are MOST oppressed should get priority solidarity. I just don't think that a bourgeoisie "women's" group should be looked at as solution to women's oppression. By definition, a bourgeoisie women's group is going to support the system itself over the needed change.

This has been a nice discussion. I've enjoyed reading the blog and all of these responses.