Feminism as a prolongation of the Marxist theory - Marxism, a crucial precursor to modern day feminism

Analysis by Andrea Chamaa, Visiting Contributor

July 15th, 2021

Marx’s theory has laid the foundation of thought to remediate to the inequalities that have emerged as a result of class antagonism. Although Marx did not approach gender dynamics explicitly, the question of women and unremunerated domestic labor has always been a key motif in his essay, particularly vis-à-vis the structure of the family, and the commodification of women in the bourgeois sphere. Thus, we shall demonstrate the instances in which Marxism was a crucial precursor to modern day feminism. In fact, the communist manifesto encompasses an implicit critique of gender dynamics, and inequalities between men and women. Further, Marx highlights the importance of reproduction in the sustenance of the workforce and hence the longevity of labor. Therefore, he acknowledges the significance of women as means of bolstering the livelihood of labor. Lastly, Marx does not regard wage-less domestic work as a means to capital accumulation, and this has a major impact on his theory and politics and contributes to the “wage illusion”.

An implicit critique of gender dynamics in Marx's Work

Feminists like Silvia Federici believe that the women’s oppression cannot be eradicated unless society is changed from the bottom up. Marx’s work and methodology have provided feminists with a tool for rethinking class, gender, feminism and anti-capitalism. Although Marx’s contribution is indirect because he never developed a theory of gender per se, his work demonstrates an understanding of the significance of gender relations while also condemning societal oppression of women.

In fact, Marx argues in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, that the gender relationship is a measure of social progress, showing to what extent a “man’s natural behavior has become human”. In The German Ideology, he speaks of slavery in the family when the man of the house appropriates the labor of his wife and children. He also tackles the topic of suicide in bourgeois society in which the culture’s morality destroys women’s lives and lead them to end their lives. In his point of view, as described in the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeois family was built on adultery and treats women like private property (Federici, 2019).

Later on, in 1867, he focuses on the capitalist exploitation of women in the factories. He describes it powerfully as a brutal exploitation of labor in the factory system. Nevertheless, his work still lacks a targeted discussion of deeply rooted gender issues.

For instance, his work doesn’t show the extent to which the exploitation of women in the factories affects women’s relation with men, with their families, or the debates that ensued in the worker’s organizations. The concerns raised by Marx were only about the work degrading a woman’s character and making her neglect her maternal and marital duties. She was never described as capable of fighting on her own behalf. She is always portrayed as a victim, subject to struggles, even though she was actually very independent and capable of defending her rights against the factory owners (Federici, 2019).

The treatment of women’s work in large-scale factories is largely due to the capitalist idea that this type of work would create the material foundation for a better lifestyle for the family and a better equality between men and women.

Marx sees that the modern industry’s work creates a “general ability” human being that is not fixed in a particular skill and capable of working in big ranges of activities. While condemning the atrocities of the working conditions, he sees this work as a positive factor for women: it liberates them from the patriarchal hold of the father and creates more equality between men and women given that both genders are collaborating together, eliminating social and gender distinctions. However, he doesn’t allude much to sexuality, family, housework, domestic labor and gender issues. Women were still expected to handle all of the maternal and marital duties after working the same hours as men in the same horrible working conditions of the big-scale industry. (Federici, 1984)

Yet, women contribute to the sustenance of such industries by begetting and nurturing the next generation of workforce.

A Partial Understanding of Reproduction

Marx acknowledges the fact that for workers to complete their tasks, they need to use their wages to purchase the “necessities of life” and thus be able to sustain their own existence. This is the labor-power production that is completed by the consumption of the commodities. “The value of labor-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of its owner”. However, at no-point does Marx realize that the reproduction of labor-power includes women’s domestic work that goes unpaid. He depicts the worker as self-reproducing who only satisfies the needs by buying and consuming commodities.

Moreover, Marx excludes the possibility for women to have an autonomous decision when it comes to procreation because he refers to it as a “natural increase of population”, a natural phenomenon.

On the other hand, in the 70s, in a revolt against housework and by looking at a possibility of economic dependence from men, feminists went looking in Marx’s work for the roots of the oppression in which women were living, as seen from a class-antagonist point of view. This sparked a revolution that has changed both Marxism and Feminism. The revolution started with the works of Maria Rosa Dalla Costa in her analysis of domestic work as the key in the production of labor-power and Selma James’s work where she put the housewives at the center of the process of capital accumulation. The “household debate” was revolving around whether or not housework is productive. The realization was that women’s unpaid work was instrumental to capitalism and capital accumulation. This corroborated the notion that women did not have to join men in the workplace to contribute to society and be considered part of the working class. The question to be asked, however, is: what would the history of capitalism look like it had it been regarded from the point of view of the kitchen and bedroom where the labor-power is “daily and generationally” produced?

The Wage Illusion

The discussions relative to housework remuneration that were initiated by women like Dalla Costa and Selma James in Italy and Britain inspired Silvia Federici to bear the same initiative in the United States in 1972. The demand for wages for housework was very important from many aspects, including the recognition that housework was the foundation for producing and reproducing the workforce itself. Hence, it showed to the world that the largest activity in every country was unpaid labor and is unseen by society.

Housework is considered by Silvia Federici as “one of the most pervasive manipulations, most subtle and mystified forms of violence that capitalism has perpetrated against any section of the working class”; this is because under capitalism, every worker is manipulated by capital and wages. However, housework is wage-less and imposed on women as a natural attribute, an aspiration derived from the female character (Federici, 2009).

When it comes to Marx, the “wage illusion” is the belief that waged industrial work is the key for capital accumulation and the main aspect of liberation, whereas other forms of work are outdated and not in the direction of development. Marx does not see the wage-less work as a mean to capital accumulation, and this has a major impact on his theory and politics. He ignores that the wage mobilizes both waged and unwaged workers. Domestic work, which is the largest activity, is ignored resulting in a much longer working day for unwaged workers, for instance women (Federici, 2009).

In conclusion, this criticism of Marx in light of modern-day feminism is important to demonstrate that his work is still, nevertheless, crucial in developing an exhaustive feminist movement that takes gender dynamics and the interrelationship between money, power and freedom into account. In extrapolation, there is a need to build a society in which capital is produced for the benefit of the community rather than for the accumulation of private wealth through the exploitation of waged and unwaged domestic workers, namely women.

 References

Federici, S. (1984). Putting Feminism Back on Its Feet. Social Text, 9/10, 338. https://doi.org/10.2307/466587

Federici, S. (2009). Federici wages against housework. https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/federici-wages-against-housework.pdf

Federici, S. (2019, December 25). Marx and Feminism — by Silvia Federici. Www.inversejournal.com. https://www.inversejournal.com/2019/12/25/marx-and-feminism-by-silvia-federici/