đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș the-incendo-crew-gender-and-classes.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:18:44. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Gender and Classes Author: The Incendo Crew Date: 2012 Language: en Topics: ultra left, gender, gender abolition, gender communism, communism, gay communism, queer, France Source: Retrieved on 2021-11-24 from https://incendo.noblogs.org/gender-and-classes-in-english/
communisme primitif nâest plus ce quâil Ă©tait⊠Aux origines de
lâoppression des femmes , Toulouse, Smolny, 2009, 466 p.
Sexuation, it seems, characterizes all societies existing or having
existed. It necessarily implies an assignment of individuals to a
definite social role, but with varying degrees of male dominance.
It is impossible to date or explain the appearance of this sexuation,
which undoubtedly goes back to prehistory. Maternity and its constraints
are generally put forward as an explanation of the origin of sexuation.
According to these assumptions, pregnancy and breastfeeding prevented «
women » from participating fully in the groupâs other activities, such
as hunting. From there, a shift would have occurred from the protection
of pregnant women (vital for the survival of the group) to the «
protection » of women because of their potential reproductive capacity.
But this does not tell us anything about the appearance of the womenâs
group, which amounts to saying that this group would be a natural
entity. Similarly, pregnancy is perceived as a natural phenomenon, not
as a socially organized process. Present in all known societies,
sexuation has taken various forms in primitive societies. While in all
cases men have a monopoly on arms and political power, this does not
automatically lead to total male dominance (which is sometimes
counterbalanced by the economic power of women).
According to Friedrich Engels, whose theses had a great influence on the
socialist movement, male dominance originated in the emergence of
private property (sedentarisation and agriculture allowing the
constitution of that could be appropriated). However, discoveries in
ethnology question this view, for forms of male dominance are found in
certain primitive societies (including hunter-gatherers), though they
were economically egalitarian (ie they ignored wealth and poverty).
Nevertheless, the emergence of non-egalitarian societies (from an
economic point of view) led to the reinforcement of male dominance. In
some societies where power was (nearly) shared, the question was decided
in favor of men. From the appearance of private property arises the need
to ensure the transmission of the patrimony and therefore the filiation
; hence the need to organize breeding by controlling female bodies. This
is reflected in their appropriation (such as cattle) by the father or
husband via family and marriage. Although the hierarchy between men and
women varies according to the organization of society, male dominance
becomes very clear with the appearance of class societies.
Over the millennia and in the majority of societies, this masculine
domination, in order to ensure perpetuation and stability, is
institutionalized (state, law, religion, politics, etc.), although in
different forms. The family is an essential element of this, since it
allows for ascent/descent and the transmission of heritage (which has
long been mainly made up of land), and thus ensures a certain social
stability.[1] In this sense, we can speak of patriarchy or patriarchal
society (institutionalized power of the head of the family).
During this period, the population is predominantly rural and peasant.
The household (which corresponds to the family) is then a unit of
production and reproduction.
Women participate in agricultural activities, alone (eg the vegetable
garden) or with men. Their tasks are not necessarily devalued, as they
are equally important for survival and production (mainly for family
consumption and maintenance of the nobility and the clergy). The tasks
performed by women, now referred to as « housewives » (kitchen, laundry,
household), are limited and not distinct from other activities. As for
the child care (a notion which only appeared at the end of the
eighteenth century[2]), it was also quite basic. Although women are
housewives, men are the heads of the family (a family that is often
enlarged), on which they have strong power. The vision of a very dark
period, notably marked by a deeply misogynistic religion (women are
creatures of the devil, have no soul, witch hunts, etc.), requires
qualification.[3]
It should be noted that women are very involved (often in the front
rows) in the struggles, food riots, struggles for bread, which punctuate
the modern period and find their culmination in the years 1789â1795.
The rise to power of the bourgeoisie marks at first a regression for the
situation of women. Subsequently, the Napoleon Code (1804) institutes
their inferiority and a real segregation: women have almost no right
except to obey men (their father or husband), and were legally treated
as minors in France until 1965 !
The literature and science of the time mostly present them as inferior
beings, intellectually and physically incapable of doing anything other
than caring for children and the home.
Nevertheless, the new bourgeois egalitarian ideology (including the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen) makes it possible to
imagine formal equality between men and women, a hypothesis hitherto
impossible. The ideology of the capitalist class (which itself evolves)
becomes very logically the dominant ideology, thus enabling it to secure
its position and to perpetuate the system: freedom, democracy, labor
value, success, competition, individualism, etc. The capitalist worm is
in the patriarchal fruit.
The industrialization of the nineteenth century, by dispossessing the
workers of the means of production and subsistence, creates a real
separation between the place of production (wage labor / factory / men)
and the place of reproduction (home / women). The public (male) and
private (female) spheres appear. It is a great novelty that will
completely reorganize the relations between men and women.[4]
Capitalism, in full expansion, is based on existing structures and
notably on patriarchy.[5] In the first place, the labor force of women
and children, at low cost (at most 50% of a manâs wage), is massively
used by exploiters. But in the middle of the century the most
clear-sighted elements of the capitalist class saw in it the risk of a
physical and moral « degeneration » of future proletarians (conditions
of work and life were so poor that the majority of young workers were
exempted from military service due to small size, malformations,
diseases, etc.). Some workers were then sent back home to ensure a real
reproduction of labor power[6] (laws regulating the work of women and
children): this is the birth of domestic labour. It is not surprising
that this role rests with women because capitalism, while transforming
them, has relied on pre-existing modes of organization and domination,
in this case patriarchy. After having disrupted the traditional family
and altered the father figure (among proletarians by factory work), it
is the bourgeois model of the family that is put forward: the emergence
of the private sphere (associated with women). Thus intimacy,
strengthening the notion of childhood (and maternal love), marriage
allegedly based on love, the authority of the household head, the
increasing intrusion of the State into the process of reproduction of
labor power (education, medicine), etc. These were the elements of the
new social norms then put in place that were going to develop throughout
the twentieth century.
Throughout the twentieth century, capitalism has been transforming
society and all aspects of life with increasing speed. In the second
half of the century, which corresponds to the massive entry of women
into the labor market and to the development of the consumer society,
the most important changes in relations between men and women are taking
place.
The mass and direct entry of women into the wage-earning system enables
them to obtain a certain degree of economic independence (towards their
husbands or fathers), whereas progressively formal equality is
essential.[7] The authority of the head of the household takes another
blow, but still prevails and the women always bear the burden of the
domestic labour, that is to say the reproduction of labor power . As for
their salary, which is much lower than that of men, it is only a
supplementary salary. This situation is unacceptable to many and opens
the door to the womenâs struggles of the 1970s: Womenâs Liberation
Movement (MLF), the Freedom of Abortion and Contraception Movement (MLAC
in France), etc. As Engels put it, « When there are equal rights, this
is when the infighting starts. »[8] The material conditions of existence
of women during this period underwent powerful upheavals : the
legalization of contraception and abortion are both a sign and a
consequence . If these measures are fatal blows to patriarchy, they
(like feminist struggles) are part of a process of modernization of the
capitalist mode of production in France, but also in other Western
countries which are then undergoing similar reforms. Capitalism does not
« free » women for nothing.
This massive entry of women into wage-earning also means their direct
and massive involvement in the class struggle, in factories but also in
the service sector (department stores, banks), not as women of
proletarians but as woman proletarians. In the capitalist mode of
production, to define them as proletarians is insufficient, it must also
be pointed out that they are women. The modalities of exploitation
define the modalities of the struggle: subsistence riots « for bread »
in which housewives play a central role give way to strikes for wage
increases (now euphemistically for » increase in purchasing power « ),
and even for equal pay with men, which in both cases obviously does not
please the employers.[9] The 1970s were characterized by the appearance
of womenâs strikes with occupation) in which gender issues generally
obscured in mixed struggles emerged (child custody, husbandâs meal,
etc.), so the private sphere was shaken. The struggles of women are then
caught in the general reflux of the activity of proletarians of this
period (crisis, unemployment, restructuring).
In the early 1980s, governments promoted the development of precarious
work, part-time work, which particularly affected women, because it was
more suited to raising children (again, there was not a question of
altruism but of forced part-time[10]). This type of contract developed
widely in the following decade and increasingly concerned men (which
made it possible to bring down all wages and working conditions, and to
introduce flexibility and precariousness).
Moreover, the jobs in which women are the majority of the workforce, as
well as the jobs where most women find employment, are very specific,
and they correspond to an extension of gendered patterns (for example,
in cleaning companies,[11] personal care, child care, ie menial jobs,
therefore poorly paid.
New problems coming up: double work day, differences in wages, sexism
and oppression of women at work.
Egalitarian ideology had opened the door to the idea of ââequality between
men and women. It becomes a « possibility » in this period, because for
the capitalist mode of production the kind of person who produces the
commodity does not theoretically change the value of the commodity
(anonymous worker, sexually abstracted human labor). However, the
maintenance of a â rearranged â form of sexuation also makes it possible
to satisfy the immediate interests of capitalists (additional division
of proletarians, competition, differences in wages, etc.).
That is because this « liberation » of women by the wage-earning system
above all fulfils the need for low-cost labor and a revival of
consumption. Capitalism only frees women from patriarchy to better
exploit them. Feminist struggles indeed contribute to it, but they are
part of this process ; it is not only a balance of power that has
brought about these substantial transformations. Capital has changed the
form of sexuation in order to adapt it to its needs. Chains change forms
and hands, passing from those of men to those of the State, and
therefore of capitalism, from a structuring individual appropriation to
a collective appropriation.[12]
For many years now, there has been an explosion of the classical nuclear
family, which is no longer the only mechanism for the reproduction of
labor power (increased divorce rate, single-parent families,
reconstituted families, social recognition of homosexual couples,
adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc.). Traditional marriage has become
obsolete. But the model persists and the couple, which remains the
indispensable instrument for the control of births, is no longer a fixed
structure and has been liberalized. Turnover in relationships is much
more frequent (monogamy is usually replaced by serial monogamy). The
persistence of the couple can be explained in particular by the multiple
economic difficulties that come with raising a child.[13] Sociologists
can try to explain this situation, but it is clear that the traditional
family is no longer adapted to the evolutions of society for example, it
puts a brake on the mobility of workers. Nevertheless, the State still
needs a model for the reproduction of the labor force and, during the
rearing period, for the reproduction of the dominant ideology (it is not
a matter of making children but of producing future proletarians).
In spite of evolutions since the 1970s, it is always the women who are
mainly responsible for the reproduction of labor power : that is to say
the carrying out of domestic labour and therefore especially the raising
of children. The number of lone-parent families (mostly mothers bringing
up children on their own) shows that man is no longer indispensable to
this task.[14]
With the massive entry of women into wage labor, the figure of the
housewife disappears, replaced by that of the female worker (who must
always, but differently, perform household chores).
The persistence of wage inequalities (less obvious than in the
nineteenth century or in the 1970s) can be explained by the fact that
womenâs work is still predominantly precarious, part-time, unskilled,
often confined to quasi-feminine sectors (cleaning jobs, social work,
health and child care) and the fact that maternity hinders career
development. Some sectors have been largely gender-mixed over the past
40 years, while others have only begun this process, not without
difficulties, including the male strongholds of the police and the
army.[15] There is also a slow but seemingly inevitable feminization of
the classical positions of power and prestige (note that the university
courses and the elite universities have very slowly gone gender-mixed
since the 1970s[16]).
Other manifestations of male dominance persist: violence against women,
rape, sexism, etc. We can even ask ourselves about the possibility of
all these changes and the transformation of the public sphere causing a
retreat (or reinforcement) of male dominance to the private sphere and
in inter-individual relations (in the street, for example). This reality
apparently weighs down on women of all classes, but are they all
subjected to it in the same way? It is this reality that can allow an
aclassist reading, whereas in fact genders and male dominance clearly
have a usefulness for any class society ; violence and rape are
undoubtedly much more a consequence of this domination than a cause.
A striking trend at the beginning of the 21^(st) century is the growing
gender mix of the capitalist class in the strict sense of the term. The
bourgeoisie is no longer, as in the 1970s, the wife of the bourgeois,
but the woman who has direct capitalist vested interests : woman
entrepreneur, Human Resources Director, senior manager, etc. This trend
seems to be accentuated in recent years, following the publication of
numerous studies, analyses and recommendations showing the profits that
companies can derive from this mix (a highly sensitive issue since the
2008 crisis, which showed that companies run by women perhaps suffered
less than the others.)[17] It is important not to deprive oneself of
certain skills and economic advantages. The most « enlightened »
fraction of the capitalist class has been convinced of the positive
nature of this mix, and many large companies have been pursuing policies
aimed at feminizing leadership and supervision over the last few years.
Nothing to do with ethical issues, even if the image of the company can
benefit from it and bossesâ mind possibly evolve.[18] Of course, being
exploited by a woman does not soften the exploitationâŠ
Because of democratic and egalitarian ideology, women also access
political power in many countries, and this is more than surprising
exceptions. This is a great novelty, because until recently the
existence of sexuation made political power a manâs monopoly. If we add
to this the massive salary of women, it is clear that the public sphere
is undergoing transformation and has lost the masculine character that
characterized it (this change is of real interest only to bourgeois
women). The same cannot be said of the private sphere, which remains a
feminine domain.[19] For it is also a matter of ensuring a reproduction
of all classes, of the whole population, and therefore of capitalist
social relations. Both bourgeois women and proletarian women remain
determined by their reproductive function (even though the higher they
rise in the social hierarchy, the fewer children they have.[20]). The
capitalist class also needs to ensure its reproduction (if only to
ensure filiation and inheritance).
This evolution is a severe blow to the patriarchal « ideology », but
does not question the sexuation which politicians and bosses benefit
from : womenâs lower wages and part-time jobs, but also reproduction of
labor power. Their interests are by definition contradictory to those of
the proletarians, men and women.
This increasing mixing of the dominant class (women, men, straight,
homos,[21] blacks, whites, Asians, etc.) has the consequence of
partially masking gender oppression, but basically it reflects reality :
the commodity world does not give a fuck about a proletarianâs gender,
and even less about a capitalistâs. These developments cannot, as we
have seen, represent an advance for the womenâs group, but for bourgeois
women only, which should caution us against an aclassist reading of
sexuation. At first, this tendency to gender mixing preserves, or maybe
reinforces, gendered identities. But one might ask whether, in the
longer term, this could entail, if not a dissolution, at least a
restructuring of gender identities and sexuation.
The evolutions of gender relations since the nineteenth century and the
development of the capitalist mode of production forces us to question
the use of the term âpatriarchyâ[22] to describe male dominance. If we
do not take these changes into account, we risk slipping into the
ahistoric vision of a patriarchy that has always existed (and which
always will). Since patriarchy is a form of social, political and legal
organization founded on / for the perpetuation of the power of men (to
the detriment of women), this term does not seem adequate to describe
our society where those who hold power are mostly men.
In 1998, Paola Tabet, referring to these changes, put forward the
hypothesis of a (capitalist) liberation of women, comparable to that of
serfs (which led to upheavals, notably the transition to a new mode of
production). With the end of patriarchy (but not male dominance) in some
countries, the transition from a structurally individual appropriation
to collective appropriation, the evolution of the family, the
integration of women into a deeply transformed public sphere, the
question arises : arenât we witnessing a restructuring of the
relationship between men and women. This domination / integration of
this relationship by capital, which has been indeed significant since
the beginnings of capitalism, has been considerably accentuated and
accelerated in the second half of the twentieth century and up to our
days when it is still in progress. This process can be linked to the
transition from a formal domination of capital over labor to real
domination: the transition to the real domination of capital over the
relationship between men and women (persistent sexuation but
restructured gender).
What are the consequences of the current economic crisis? Austerity
measures and budget cuts against public services and the social sector
at European level often affect women (health, closure of hospitals,
family-friendly measures to drive them out of the labor market, etc.),
but this concerns especially proletarian women : other women have the
means to resort to the private sector. Nevertheless, the 1973 crisis
showed that the attempts to force women back to their homes have only a
marginal impact. On the contrary, OECD experts consider that the
continuation and enhancement of womenâs wages is the key to tomorrowâs
growth.[23]
What is really happening with the struggles of proletarian women today
in France? In the 1970s, strikes by proletarian women were still
unusual. They could have feminist claims (equal pay), had consequences
for the home (custody of children, « who would wash my socks?« , etc.)
and often developed in complete opposition with men. Today, womenâs
strikes no longer seem exceptional. It seems that they no longer have
the blatant character of an opposition between men and women (management
and trade union management as well as labor have become gender mixed,
differences between male and female wages persist but are no longer as
abysmal as before[24]). As for the consequences on the home, they are
still relevant. The problem of the double working day is a reality for
every proletarian woman and, indeed, the question of who performs
domestic labour arises as soon as she goes on strike. Moreover, the
present level of proletarian combativity is relatively low, and the
information on strikes is not abundant, and it tells us even less about
their consequences on gender relations (especially within the home).
« Some feminists are vulgar, dishonest and full of hate. »
« And I vainly seek for reasons to prove them wrong. »
Tag and answer on a wall of Valence, France, in 2006.
What are the struggles of feminist groups today? If there is no more
movement of large magnitude as in the 1970s, some organizations, groups
and currents feminists exist anyway⊠One cannot speak of feminism in the
singular. As forty years ago, it is rather a swarm of contradictory
ideas, practices, and debates that are opposed and mutually enriched.
Its many tendencies often have no clear-cut boundaries and seem to
permeate each other. It is impossible to give an exhaustive account of
this (the following presentation may therefore appear somewhat
caricatural). So here are some of their positions.
A widespread approach is activism in defence of womenâs rights: leagues
of all kinds for the defence of womenâs rights, Watchdogs, Neither
Whores nor Submissive, the World March of Women and many others.[25] For
this kind of organisation, male dominance is perceived as a series of
defects that need only be corrected. It is therefore necessary to refer
to the State and to put pressure on it (in particular by lobbying the
institutions) to improve the « condition of women ». Among the main
lines of battle are: parity, discrimination in recruitment, equal pay,
the âIslamic veilâ,[26] defence of the right to abortion, homosexual
adoption and marriage, etc. These campaigns have at best a superficial
effect on masculine domination and sexuation, and they are also part of
the evolutions of capitalism. They reinforce it by adapting the «
condition of women » and by advocating democracy and equality between
men and women, which obviously does not open a perspective of gender
abolition. One can also find that it is an aberration for a feminist to
refer to the State, which organizes and endorses male dominance.
Groups also carry out awareness campaigns « aimed at the general public
», for the purpose of changing attitudes: they stand against sexist
toys, sexism in advertising, rape and anti-woman violence, and supports
contraception⊠(often carried out by Associations such as the Family
Planning Movement, and others, less institutional). If one can sometimes
appreciate their informative nature, inviting to reflection (or even
more), one can only regret the limits: these campaigns can affect only a
tiny minority of people, and have a very limited impact. They are
usually premised on the theory that sexism draws its origins from
education, media and advertising, which then are turned into issues:
only by modifying education, purifying the media and advertising that we
can abolish sexism. But womenâs oppression rests on much deeper
foundations, and education is only a vector.
The structures organizing these campaigns are sometimes blamed for
abandoning the « field of struggle » to act in favour of emergency
measures, or even for « co-managing with women and men the misery of
women ». However, these campaigns â and the structures that organize
them â are more than a plaster on a wooden leg. Of course, for example,
family planning (access to contraception, abortion, gynecological care,
etc.), emergency shelters (for battered or other women), and
counselling, are not a panacea. But there are currently very few other
solutions, and this allows many women to survive on a daily basis or to
get out of crappy situations.
In addition to this grassroots or âsocial servicesâ activism, many
non-institutional groups or individuals (ranging from anarcha-feminism
to radical lesbians and feminists, materialists, etc.), as well as an
important academic research sector, carry out often relevant analyses
that highlight the need for the abolition of the « patriarchal society »
and gender, and often also the abolition of all forms of oppression (in
the ranks of which capitalist exploitation sometimes appears).
These more radical theses (which do not always benefit from the same
means of dissemination) are less visible to the general public, less
publicized â or not at all. These ideas and practices are disseminated
through newspapers, brochures, radio programs, books, films, posters and
leaflets, etc. The 1970s theses of Christine Delphy have had some
influence, as well as those of Paola Tabet, Colette Guillaumin, Monique
Wittig, and many others. One often encounters the idea that patriarchy
is at the origin of capitalism (which is a system of white straight
men), and that to bring down the first (the main enemy) necessarily
entails the end of the second. The view of the relationship between men
and women as « exploitation of one class by another »[27] is fairly
widespread.
These reflections deal with social movements[28] as much as with womenâs
daily lives. But there is a frequent confusion between all forms of
domination (sexism, racism, capitalism, speciesism, validism, ageism,
etc.), placed on an equal footing and not envisaged from the point of
view of their origins or their functions in our time.
Among the angles of reflection is the criticism of heterosexuality
defined as a norm that organizes sexuality for reproduction. The
pressure to conform to the heterosexual standard has been violently
criticized since the 1970s by the MLF or, in France for example, by
homosexual groups such as the Homosexual Front of Revolutionary Action
(FHAR).[29]
Today, although homosexuality tends more and more to be integrated by
capital, criticism of heteronormativity and its counterpart, the
pressure to conform to the motherhood model, are still in force. This
criticism can lead to the theory of lesbianism as a political strategy.
One can only regret that this sometimes goes as far as anti-men
separatist tendencies, denouncing heterosexuality as a form of
collaboration with the enemy or voluntary submission. Such an attitude
does reject masculine dominance, but certainly not sexism, let alone
genderâŠ
We are also witnessing, even in the most radical circles, a return to
essentialist theses. A whole section of feminist reflections promotes
the value of âbeing a womanâ, defends a so-called feminine « nature »,
overwhelmed by patriarchy and capitalism, and believes that women have
to retrieve this ânatureâ by reconnecting with a âwomanâ behaviour and
way of life. The American neopaganist Starhawk, who claims to be a
witch, is an extreme caricature. These theories advocate a « return to
the natural » and defend the idea (quite sexist actually) that women are
much closer than men to nature, to « trees« , even to « stars« , and
what about animals ? Motherhood, seen as « so natural » and sometimes
understood as a « force », must therefore be positively reappraised.
These theses often go hand in hand with an idealization of precapitalist
societies, and with the will to reappropriate old techniques and
knowledge (such as breastfeeding, abortive plants, and washable nappies
are so much more ecological than disposable ones !).[30]
The idea of ââgetting rid of the social norm to reconnect with her «
nature-woman » is a return to essentialism. For those feminists, genders
are perceived and criticized as imposed social roles, but it is for the
benefit of a supposedly « true », « natural » identity. This echoes the
theories of the 1970s, especially those of Antoinette Fouque and the
SorciĂšres [Witches] magazine (1975â1982). There is, of course, no
prospect whatsoever of overcoming gender in his way, nor of surpassing
anything else.
Some of these discourses are marked by a refusal (an occultation?) of
conflict which is analysed as typically masculine. This is related to
the idea of sorority,[31] for the goal is to dismiss discord between
women and build a common front against male oppressors. The desire to
bring back to life and to reassess the memory of feminist movements,
sometimes goes as far as denying conflicts, errors and contradictions.
The watchword of the reappropriation of the body is very present in
feminist reflections. Since the 1970s, « my body belongs to me » has
remained a creed. This may concern both the « choice » of being a mother
or not, rape, aesthetic norms or medicine. This slogan is a response to
the appropriation of women by men. An aspect that certain ultra-left
theorists have been unable to take into account, reproaching feminists
for defending and thus extending the notion of private property.
Among the different feminist activities, gender non-mixing is always
topical and always causes polemics, whether considered as a means or as
an end in itself. Since women are isolated from each other (each in each
in her own home, for example), to meet, to share experiences and
reflections, organizing is therefore essential. The self-organization of
the oppressed, what could be more logical? What could be more logical
than to meet outside the camp of the oppressors? Non-mixity can also
logically lead proletarian women and bourgeois women to organize
together, which is not without posing other problems⊠However, the
gender conflict can be resolved only by the dissolution of the
categories men and women. It is therefore necessary that the subject is
also posed as a mixture.
Feminism is often lacking in a global analysis seeking to understand the
relationship between class relations and gender relations. A historical
vision shows us a fluctuating patriarchal system, knowing and
experiencing perpetual evolutions, modelled by successive modes of
production (today, an ever-changing capitalist system). However, there
is a present tendency to deprive feminism of a necessary ahistorical
outlook. This confuses the analysis of the problem in perspective and in
practice (as if it were enough to take up the slogans and methods which
were those of the French MLF forty years ago).
« Deconstruction » is an idea (and a practice) that currently prevails
in parts of the feminist movement.[32] It takes as its starting point
the idea that genders are social constructions and that « the private is
political » . On the basis of individual awareness (or in small groups),
it is necessary to modify oneâs behavior in order to correct oneâs
sexist constructions and, in the long run, to eliminate sexism.
From there, the personal dimension takes on an oversized importance in
relation to the structural, up to the point when it becomes the only
field of action. « Because of the disproportionate importance given to
subjective experience, [âŠ] the politics of subjectivity became an
âinteriorityâ, that is, a personal change without change in
society.«[33]
With the argument âthe private is politicalâ, one recognizes that the
private sphere is socially organized, that it is not outside society,
and that our personal relationships are part of it. The private domain,
therefore, is also a place of contradictions, conflicts, even struggles.
Strikes and social movements, in the public sphere, where women are
involved, necessarily have an impact on the private sphere (home,
family: âWhoâs going to cook my steak?â, âWhere do you put the sheets?â)
In the absence of such movements, the activism falls back on the private
sphere and is confined to it. A shift takes place: âPolitics is the
privateâ.
The deconstruction consists of an individual and personal questioning of
genders, seen as fixed identities, as a garment that that can be put on
and off at will. On the contrary, if genders are a social construction,
it is not possible to extricate oneself from the social relations of
which they are the manifestation. One cannot choose to no longer be a
man or a woman, for in this society there are only two boxes. In the NHS
computer, you have to be either 1 or 2.
In other words, there is an inconsistency between the recognition of
structures and social relations and the desire to free oneself from them
by individual action. While individuals endeavour to deconstruct
themselves, this social construction continues to affect billions of
people, including you and me.[34]
Deconstruction poses the problem of choice in this society: can we
choose to deconstruct? Who can do it? A single woman without children
will perhaps have more energy to devote to deconstruction than a mother
with three kids, whereas a bourgeois woman will have more leisure to do
it than a woman paid a minimal wage, and so on. Despite its claimed
subversive commitment â the disappearance of genders, no less â,
deconstruction, like any alternative, is reduced to the search for
individual happiness in capitalist society.
In practice, this quite attractive self-awareness brings about an
elitist drift, a denigration and a culpabilisation of those who do not
deconstruct : it creates a new standard, by definition ossifying and
binding. We find ourselves faced with a new ideology.[35]
This is not to discourage any personal attempt to question his or her
behavior. After all, it is here and now that we live, and it is quite
normal to try to alleviate our plight and try not to behave like a
bastard⊠Just as it makes sense that the oppressed rebel against their
condition, individually or collectively. These are survival practices.
It is important to question our social constructions, but we must not
lose sight of the fact that any attempt to extricate ourselves from them
is doomed to fail as long as this society continues. The abolition of
gender and male dominance will never be achieved by deconstruction.
Queer aims at subverting genders, and therefore the whole of society,
the basis of which â we are told â would be shaken by gender collapse.
This movement appears in response to the integration and
institutionalization of gay and lesbian movements. Gaysâ struggles have
had a revolutionary character, so long as they have not been integrated
into the capital, precisely as an identity.
Its limitations lie in the personal nature of the change, which capital
can easily make do with[36] (besides, queer theory ignores class
relations). Dissent is contained in social relations, so it does not
break with present society.
Queer is interesting in that it constitutes an experiment (although
inevitably a limited one) since it takes place within this society).
Queer theories show that today we can think of the abolition of genders.
But in terms of practice, prospects or strategy, it sums up all the
shortcomings we have pointed out regarding deconstruction.
Overall, with respect to gender and male dominance, denial prevails.
That is, a refusal to approach this subject. In this desert, both
practical and theoretical, appear a few oases⊠and many mirages. A
little historical reminder is necessary since the conceptions of the
Marxists and the anarchists have finally evolved little, whereas the
appearance and the diffusion of the gender theory should have provoked a
renewed reflection.
Contrary to what is generally believed, Marx, Engels and some Marxist
theorists Lafargue, Bebel were interested in the question of the
relations between men and women and did not deny the oppression of the
latter, especially when they approach the family issue. For them, this
oppression is a consequence of the formation of class societies : with
the disappearance of capitalism, which is the ultimate stage of class
societies, it can only disappear in its turn. If the modification of
living conditions is considered to be paramount in this process, the
role of the socialist State is fundamental. It must implement measures
to put an end to domestic labor: it will socialize all the tasks
performed in the home by women by setting up collective canteens, day
nurseries, etc. This vision was taken up in the 20^(th) century by
Marxist feminists (such as Alexandra Kollontai or Angela Davis). The
example of the Russian Revolution partly confirms this thesis: the
relations between men and women were overwhelmed by the collapse of the
old system, chaos and revolution. The collectivization of certain
aspects of life (canteens) seems to have played its part: but it is the
catastrophic conditions of survival that were the cause, not the State.
Moreover, everything quickly returned to normal, since the revolutionary
process was interrupted and the State reorganized and took over the
management of society.[37] Generally, throughout the 20^(th) century
this was treated as a minor issue, only to be dealt with after the
revolution. Especially since it would risk « dividing the proletariat »âŠ
For anarchists, there is generally no feminine question per se, since it
is embraced in the more general problem of human liberation. By
definition, they oppose all oppressions, more or less perceived as a
whole.
Anarchists make a severe theoretical criticism of institutions such as
family or marriage and advocate equality between men and women. In this
sense, the importance of education and propaganda is emphasized (for
example, neo-Malthusian propaganda and especially vasectomy in the early
twentieth century). It is an individual process of transformation that
must put an end to the oppression of women, as if it were enough for
everyone to read pamphlets or listen to anarchist speakers⊠(this
approach can be compared with deconstruction).
Nevertheless, the strong discrepancy between the theory and the
practices of the anarchist militants is particularly striking from the
Milieux libres (French libertarian communal experiments) to the Spanish
Revolution. Nothing very surprising about that, if we remember the
ingrained misogyny displayed by some theorists, Proudhon particularly.
A widespread position is that the gender issue is secondary and does not
deserve a struggle in itself: after the revolution, the oppression of
women will disappear by itself, as if by a magic wand (a good trick to
evade the issue today⊠and to avoid changing the babyâs nappies, you
lazy sods !).
Antisexism is also one of the facets of all leftist groups, with
antiracism, ecology, animal liberation⊠as a desire to take full account
of all oppressions, but merely but merely by juxtaposing them, because
these groups are unable to think of society as an interrelated whole and
therefore to envisage alternative perspectives. The reflections are
often limited to a report-denunciation of the situation of women today.
However, an increasing number of newspapers, groups, reviews[38] deal
with this subject in articles that are not without interest.[39]
In recent years, therefore, there seems to be renewed interest in the
issue, including an attempt to surpass theoretical considerations in
groups from the ultra-left â and beyond â which had long been allergic
to these issues.[40] Letâs hope it will become more and more commonâŠ
Why this renewed interest? Or rather, why can the question be raised
today in these circles, whereas feminist activity has been dedicated to
it for a long time? Part of the answer might be in the evolution of
relations between men and women over the past forty years (the end of
patriarchy, the still relative but growing gender mix of the capitalist
class, together with the persistence of sexuation, masculine domination,
etc.) as well as in the evolution of class relations (end of
working-class identity, restructuring, atomisation of the proletariat,
etc.). The material conditions change, and it is necessary, from a
communist perspective, to take them into account.
Beyond activism, proletarian women are involved in struggles, without
putting forward feminist demands, for example during strikes. Letâs bear
in mind that the massive entry of women into wage labor, and directly
into the class struggle, has led to the emergence of specific problems,
resulting in new conflicts within the private sphere (home,
reproduction). However, the latter are generally invisible because of
the « pre-eminence » of the fight against exploitation, and therefore
rarely analysed as « womenâs struggles ».
The documentary fiction of Marin Karmitz, Coup pour coup,[41] based on
real facts, shows this well. In the 1970s, woman workers in a textile
factory went on strike and occupied the factory. As a result, they no
longer took care of domestic labour, with immediate consequences on
their households. The reactions of husbands are significant : lost,
alone and forced to manage their home, their children and their own
reproduction, they become, in fact, a brake on the struggle. Many of
them went so far as to openly oppose their partnersâ strike. Dads unable
to take care of their children would drop them off at the factory, which
suddenly started looking like a crib. Woman workers nevertheless emerged
victorious against the bosses, and strengthened from the challenge with
their husbands (at least for a while). There is no shortage of real
examples.
It can be assumed that a workersâ strike has as much impact on the home,
if not more, than feminist propaganda. The strikes of proletarian women
make private matters public (for example, crĂšches in factories question
the separation between the public and the private spheres practically
but only for a while. However, when the strike ends, everything very
often returns to the old order of things, with its share of
disappointments and depressions.
The struggles of proletarian women link, in fact, capitalism and male
dominance, highlighting gender issues. But they are not posed as such
(in practice). This explains the lack of information (and hence
analyses) on the inevitable impact of such struggles on the relationship
between men and women, and in particular on the private sphere.
From the nineteenth century onwards, there were two systems, patriarchy
(social organization) and capitalism (mode of production), distinct but
linked. Liaison does not necessarily mean harmony (each system using and
reinforcing the other), and may also involve oppositions or
contradictions, or even lead to breaking point.
Male dominance, mainly in its patriarchal form, has always been
necessary and characterized all class societies. It was particularly
adapted to precapitalist societies characterized by their economic and
social stability (based on the family unit, the unit of production and
reproduction).
Sexuation is the backdrop against which the different modes of
production have followed each other; its evolution is not an autonomous
historical dynamic. On the contrary, the relationship between men and
women is modified with each mode of production while retaining its main
characteristics (assignment of women to animal husbandry, menâs power).
Capitalism has taken root in the feudal mode of production, but, let us
recall, sexuation was structural, decisive from the economic and social
point of view. Patriarchy was necessary for the development of
capitalism, in particular to ensure the reproduction of the labor power
(by continuing to structure society). But because of its revolutionary
character (as Marx said), capitalism modifies this by altering society
as a whole, permanently. It thus destroyed or transformed all the modes
of production and organization that pre-existed it. He did the same with
patriarchy.
In its evolution, capitalism encountered patriarchy, some fundamental
aspects of which were no longer adapted to it (for example, the need for
female labor is at odds with the confinement of women at home[42]).
Patriarchy has therefore been altered. Capitalism is therefore the first
mode of production which has a problem with women.
For a long time, the reins of capitalism were in the hands of
heterosexual white men (which may have led to confusion, in particular
the belief that the two systems are one, or that capitalism is
essentially masculine ), Which is no longer the case today.[43]
Capitalism is therefore not in itself patriarchal, but it is necessarily
gendered. It now could not do without sexuation and masculine
domination, and he cannot, at present, abolish genders. Even in the very
long term, the realization of this hypothesis would require enormous
upheavals. Current trends do not go in this direction, and rather point
to a restructuring of the relationship between men and women.
Birth is an issue in all societies. Ensuring its control was a necessity
for every class society, especially for capitalism, for which the
increase (or at least the renewal) of the number of workers is the
condition for economic expansion. This involves the control over women.
Far more than for the previous modes of production, the expansion of the
number of workers was fundamental for capitalism, especially in its
phase of formal domination. Hence (among others) important changes in
the organization of sexuation. Today, it is imperative for capital to
ensure rational control over the increase in labor power (or, at least,
its renewal). Indeed, in areas where it has entered real domination, a
disproportionate increase in labor power is less necessary than a
rational management of the number of workers, especially skilled workers
(a proportion of unskilled workers may be provided by immigration). This
is manifested in some countries by pro-natalist policies, and in others
by contrary dispositions (which may include sterilization and more or
less forced abortions imposed onâŠwomen).
Control over women involves the appropriation of the whole body and the
whole mind (including through education). Until the twentieth century,
this appropriation took place on an individual basis, mainly through
marriage and the family. Marriage was an instrument of control that
placed women in a situation of sexual availability and maximum risk of
pregnancy (the husband acted as an intermediary in this control and
derived advantages from it). It is a direct, personal domination (which
can be compared to slavery or serfdom and which is sometimes called «
sexage » in French).
Today, this appropriation takes place mainly in a collective mode, and
dominance becomes indirect, impersonal. This implies, as in the
wage-earning system, an appearance of freedom which is part of the
definition of capitalism).
The role of the State in this system, since the nineteenth century, has
been essential, and it is on the rise:[44]
(contraception, voluntary termination of pregnancy, etc.);
(crĂšches) , education, vocational training, health, etc.);
the private sphere (to the detriment of the husbandâs power) through
various social control mechanisms (social workers and â in Britain â the
NHS). It sets up various regulations concerning, for example, divorce,
adoption, custody of children, violence in couples or marital rape
(recognized at least on paper);
security, family allowances, unemployment benefits, etc.).
Today, the evolution of society makes the traditional couple no longer
necessary for the renewal of the labor power: a woman can manage on her
own with the help and control of the State. If the function of the
father is no longer indispensable (his image has deteriorated since the
nineteenth century without disappearing), that of the mother has
remained constant and essential (with variations on the form, notably on
the centrality of motherhood in womenâs lives).
One wonders whether individual appropriation has completely disappeared.
Is it always structural in sexuation and in male dominance? Has it
become an element among others in the service of this structure?
The couple is still the dominant model for reproduction, even though it
is now characterized by a turnover, and is no longer hegemonic.
Domestic labor means « free » work performed by women in the private
sphere and for the benefit of the household. It appeared, after some
historical trial and error, in the nineteenth century, with the
separation between production place and reproduction place, women being
assigned to the latter. But since that time, domestic labor has evolved
considerably. It is this activity that defines women, characterizes
their place in the social relationship between men and women.
It includes two essential functions:
proletarians) and, to a lesser extent, of the capitalist class. The
reproduction of a âworkersâ race is the central element of domestic
labor;
proletarians).
It may be noted that:
workforce (indispensable tasks, such as cooking and child care);
(eating outside of the home, crĂšches, etc.) during the 20^(th) century;
socialization) saves time, another task appears (hence the considerable
evolution since even the 1950s). Proletarian women always have something
to do. However, for an employed woman as well as an unemployed woman,
the number of hours of domestic labour amount to much less than for a
housewife. This shows the superfluity of the number of household chores.
Domestic labor is therefore quite different from a list of tasks. It is
the activity of women in the home;
the proletarianâs salary, which is not the payment of labor but the cost
of reproducing the labor-power (of the worker and his family);
proletarian women in exchange for a salary);
also allows a reduction of the necessary working time, thus a drop in
the value of the labor power. This also makes it possible in a work day
to increase surplus labor (the rest of the working time).[45] For
example, if domestic labor is not done by women, the wage earner must
resort to dry cleaning and eat sandwiches. Thus the value of his labor
power will have increased;
possible to articulate (more or less well) production and reproduction.
The preceding points show that it is hazardous to draw a parallel
between domestic labour and wage labor.
Moreover, one of the characteristics of wage labor is the so-called
freedom of the individual who sells his labor power. It is not the same
for women, who, despite capitalist freedom, remain appropriated
subjects.
On the other hand, domestic labour is not just salaried, but indirectly
remunerated. It does not produce surplus value, and no production is
placed on the market.[46] When certain tasks of the household are not
carried out by the mother / wife but by an employed woman, then it no
longer is domestic labour.
Wage labor and domestic labour therefore do not follow the same logic
and are organized differently. And if domestic labour directly benefits
the husband, it mainly indirectly benefits capital.[47]
A recent OECD report[48] encourages States to take action because
womenâs work is the key to tomorrowâs growth:
in childcare and « domestic responsibilities« .
The aim is to improve the rate of womenâs return to work following
maternity leave (a period which hinders the participation of women in
the labor market and their careers).[49]
Would an egalitarian distribution of household tasks call into question
the definition of domestic labor? An egalitarian distribution of hours
is imaginable, but the end of any sexuation of tasks is much less so.
The statistics show that the problem lies in the tasks of raising
children. Domestic labour time by women explodes with the arrival of a
child in the household (whereas it is equivalent to domestic labor time
performed by single people).
Some feminists have attempted to combine the criticism of capitalism
with that of patriarchy. For some, capitalism is a fruit of patriarchy.
Sexism is one of the foundations of capitalism : one cannot defeat one
without the other (but feminismâs main enemy remains patriarchy).
Radical feminists (Delphy) believe that patriarchy is an autonomous mode
of production (with two classes, men and women, the first exploiting the
second), which they call « domestic production mode » or « patriarchal
mode ». They use the term « class » because for them women have a
specific common place in a specific mode of production where they are
exploited by domestic labour. Nevertheless, to us, it seems
inappropriate to describe domestic labour as a « mode of production ».
Women constitute a dominated group because of their supposed
reproductive abilities. But if all bourgeois or proletarians undergo
male dominance at present, they are not all subjected to the same
material conditions and have contradictory interests (there is no match
between belonging to gender and belonging to a class). Genders relate to
a specific place in the reproduction process, classes to a specific
place in the production process. We cannot therefore speak of a class of
women but of a group whose members are assigned to a specific common
place. Genders are not classes⊠they are genders.
It is not possible to know what revolution and communism will be, by
just taking into account what the proletarians are today and what they
think (our present mentalities are forged by todayâs society).
Nevertheless, in studying past revolutionary periods, the present course
of the class struggle, and the present state of the relationship between
men and women, we may try to put forward some hypotheses.
Our vision obviously does not relate to the programmatic (Leninist or
other) conceptions of the revolution, in which the proletariat must grow
more and more powerful in this society, then take political power, seize
the State, factories and all the old crap and then, during a period of
transition, put in place the conditions of communism. It is not for us
to radically change the way in which the economy is managed (it is not a
matter of appropriating companies).
Rather, we believe that the phase of destruction of the old world is, at
the same time, the phase of construction of communism (suppression of
the State, property, value, money, exchange, and classes by the
proletarian action,[50] which means the self-negation of the
proletariat, etc.). In the 1970s, this process was theorized by several
ultra-left groups who called it communisation.[51]
« Insurrection and communisation are intimately linked. There will not
be the insurrection and then, afterwards, allowed by the insurrection,
the transformation of social reality. The insurrectional process derives
its strength from communisation itself. »[52]
This process will inevitably integrate the question of genders, and
ultimately lead to their abolition (otherwise it would sink into the
mire of counter-revolution).
To achieve that, no need for decrees to be drafted and then implemented:
instead, a lot of bonfires, and above all communist « measures »,[53] in
order to bring the system down, to prevent any going back, to wipe the
slate clean and keep it so for a new world.
Capitalism is based, among other things, on a social relation, wage
labor, which is to be disposed of and which is blocked at the time of
the revolution.[54] When the proletariat bursts on the scene, it is both
cause and effect of this historical crisis, in the forms of general
strikes, riots, generalized insurrection, and the seizure of certain
means of production useful for the revolution (and the shutdown /
destruction of others). Communisation will act as a decisive break,
composed of advances and setbacks where violence and confrontations will
unfortunately be inevitable (against cops of all kinds, the army,
private military companies, etc.). As for the physical elements of
capital (not only the factories) which now allow it to go on, they will
be rendered useless, unusable or destroyed: money, banks, gold reserves,
titles of property, solicitorsâ offices, administrations, business
headquarters, barracks, âcathedrals which are for us so many absurdities
» [as Charles dâAvray (1878â1960) wrote in his Triumph of Anarchy],
etc., which are the more or less traditional targets of proletarian
wrath.[55] The revolution will not of course limit itself to storming a
few buildings : the main weapons of the insurgents will be implementing
communist âmeasuresâ and creating new social relations.
This movement definitively abolishes the existing order of things, that
is, the social relations of this world of shit (State, property,
capitalism, exploitation, value, money, wages, exchange, classes, etc.),
which at the same time removes the need to reproduce labor power, family
and gender. The abolition of wage-earning and revolutionary activity an
end to the distinction between social activity and individual activity,
between the various separations (working, rest, leisure time, etc.) :
this undermines the foundations of the separation between the private /
reproductive sphere and the public / productive sphere. New
relationships are established between immediate social individuals,
against all mediation, class belonging, and so on.
The « classical » struggles (strikes, occupations, riots, insurrections,
etc.) transform those who participate in them : the proletarians carry
out actions / reflections that they themselves could not have imagined
before. This is made possible because the tedium of everyday life, the
alienating and mind-numbing daily activity, the usual social relations
are upset and / or interrupted. New relationships are created : we have
time to meet, to discuss, to think, and so on. One could say that «
class consciousness is formed in the struggle » (Otto RĂŒhle). And the
more intense the struggle, the more profound is the transformation.[56]
So far, this type of situation has always been limited in time and
space, and has therefore affected only a limited number of people each
time. When a struggle ends, everyday life, especially work, resumes its
course, everything returns to normal (minds as well, but sometimes not
completely). Thanks to the revolution, this situation will no longer
have any spatio-temporal limits.
The strikes of proletarian women (especially in the 1970s), in fact,
highlight, and sometimes even question male dominance.[57] The struggle
removes women from home, unites them, and these are moments of sharing
that bring about and modify practices. Performing or not performing
domestic labour becomes a problem : either it is no longer done or the
women are assigned to it at the expense of the struggle. This has a
direct impact on the life at home, the couple, the family: women are no
longer available for meals, laundry, child care⊠Faced with this, the
couple undergoes a crisis which undermines sexuation. Reproductive
issues (not the general reproduction of labour power, but everyday
survival) are necessarily and directly integrated into the struggle
(which is no longer limited to wage labor issues). But again, when the
struggle is over, everyday life retrieve its prerogatives and everything
more or less goes back to normal.
These strikes are examples that help us imagine the intensity of such
upheavals as created by a revolutionary period. The participation of
women in the insurrection will be inescapable and massive. This will
have an important impact on the private sphere (which, like the public
sphere, will disappear), and on everyday life. They will no longer
intervene as women of proletarians or housewives, which was mostly the
case in the « revolutionary » episodes of the past. They will act as
proletarians (they challenge classes) and also as women (they address
issues related to reproduction and gender).[58]
Historical examples show that very often, in the early days of a
revolutionary period, women are active, take up arms, therefore social
relations and gender division are upset (Paris in 1871, Russia in
1917,[59] Spain in 1936). It may, however, be objected that they quickly
found themselves confined to female tasks (infirmary, kitchen, laundry,
etc.), which is true. It is not so much that the revolutionary process
reinstates sexuation, but it is because this process is stopped. Because
the foundations of the old world are maintained (especially
wage-earning), the management of a more or less normal social order
becomes necessary, and the bureaucracies (Bolshevik Party or CNT[60])
emerge or rise. Returning women to the home or to the kitchen is easy,
for such is then their central place in society at that time
(proletariansâ women); this is no longer the case today.
During the revolutionary process, womenâs issues will expose themselves,
explode and inevitably provoke conflicts (who will take care of the
kids, the infirmaries, the canteen, etc.?). To resolve them will
probably involve forms of self-organization of women (versus men?)[61]
not to reverse domination, but to dissolve gender.[62] Is it just a
possibility or a necessity? The question remains, as well as that of the
risk of confirming the gender division. In this hypothesis, if the
self-organization of women is a step in the process of communisation,
the rest (abolishing gender) will be carried out against this
self-organization.
The fighting and destruction, the abolition of property, money, value,
the State, etc., will in fact also undermine many daily life vectors of
social construction by rendering them inoperative, unusable, obsolete or
forcing them to disappear. It is impossible to make an exhaustive list
(since it is the whole life that will be transformed and disrupted), but
we can give a few examples: the pornographic industry, advertising,
media (TV / newspapers), religious institutions, the school system,
civil status / administration / Family Benefits Funds and no more
marriages, divorces, marriage contracts, filiations, inheritances,
etc.[63]), prostitution, fashion industry, âMiss Britainâ beauty
contests, nightclubs, Walt Disney, etc.
To these upheavals of daily life we ââmust add the impact of the new
operating modes that will be put in place in the struggle in order to
solve the many difficulties (such as food supplies[64]): multiple
assemblies and discussion rooms, collective canteens, collective
housing, collective education and children raising (end of the nuclear
family), genuine sexual liberation (disappearance of fossilising social
and moral frameworks), etc. (Here we have to admit the weakness of our
imagination).
It will be possible to get rid of the old world after a few years of a
frightful, bloody and perhaps a little joyful struggle, but although the
struggle transforms those who participate, it may not be the same for
the many nuisances of an ideological nature. In particular, everything
that comes from a life-long education and environment is deeply rooted
in each and every one of us: sexism, racism, individualism, need and
desire for order, discipline, hierarchy, the couple model (which is
likely to be one of the last bastions of resistance of male
dominance[65]), the appropriation of children, and so on. To put an end
to all this may seem difficult today, but let us recall that the process
of communisation will put on the table the problems of sexuation, and
the evolution of mentalities will undoubtedly be much faster than one
might think.
Gender abolition does not mean standardization, levelling and sadness.
It is impossible today to imagine what pregnancy, raising of (probably
collective) children, sentimental, bodily and / or sexual relationships,
bodies, etc., will be in a communist world. In any case, the vocabulary
available to us is not up to the task.
With the revolution, sexuation and genders will in fact have been
abolished by the immediately social individuals. But communism will not,
of course, abolish the distinction between who carries the children and
who does not carry them. However, pregnancy is not a natural phenomenon,
it is socially organized (differently according to the epochs, societies
and regions[66]). Today this implies the constitution of the womenâs
group and male dominance. The way in which the organization of pregnancy
during communisation will be treated and resolved is crucial and very
problematic. Maternity and motherhood are one of the questions on which
the abolition of genders[67] â therefore communisation â risks
stumbling.
Communism cannot be considered as concomitant with the existence of any
social hierarchy (and therefore with the persistence of male dominance)
or with social determinations. Although the idea of a period of
transition (to establish the basis of communism) is to be rejected, we
cannot believe that humanity will be truly happy when the last
capitalist has been hanged. In other words, even if communisation means
creating communist relationships, and will be the revolutionariesâ main
weapon, communism will not exist only on the day when the last armed
confrontation is over. Despite all upheavals, « mentalities » (the fruit
of social relations) will not yet be communist. If the term was not so
historically charged, one could speak of a kind of transitional period
(not the withering of the State, but of capitalist mentality) towards
communism.
Communism will not be paradise, it will not abolish all possibilities of
conflict, but they will no longer be mediated by capital or other forms
of domination; They will undoubtedly find new forms of resolution. The
conditions explaining and enabling male dominance and all forms of
domination or oppression will have disappeared, which is a good starting
point. Immediately social individuals (already transformed during
communisation) will have conditions of existence particularly favourable
to a « positive » evolution. The next generation (which has only known
communism but will undergo the influence of adults who will probably
have kept remnants from the past) will be much less subject to the flaws
of the old world⊠and perhaps not at all. One dare not imagine what it
will be like ten generations laterâŠ
Today, sporadically, many proletarians, men and women, explode with
anger, revolt and refuse to submit to exploitation and domination,
participating in fact in this real movement that will abolish the
existing order of things. These struggles have the limits of their time
and, in this period of relative social calm (as long as everything keeps
functioning), they can only be partial, reformist, etc. But a period of
crisis / insurrection will offer the potentialities of a radical and
qualitative break with the current struggles.
Though we are not passively waiting for these moments of collective
emotion, it is not up to us (the more or less self-proclaimed «
revolutionaries ») to trigger struggles, nor to decide objectives, nor
angles of attack. We take part in them like all the proletarians. If
personal (or as a small group) initiatives are obviously not to be
rejected, one must be aware that only a massive collective struggle (the
revolution) can abolish classes and genders in a necessarily unique
simultaneous and converging movement.[68]
The participation of women in the revolt movements of the past has often
been perceived as an indicator of radicality. But since their massive
and direct entry into wage labor and therefore into strikes, their mere
involvement has led to the emergence of questions of reproduction. The
revolution will take place with the proletarian women, and it is this
implication which will allow a qualitative leap hitherto impossible.
Hence the abolition of the public and private spheres will come to the
fore as the end of genders and sexuation. In this conflictual and
problematic process, the role of women will be a major determinant⊠as
well as the role of men reacting to how women change. We can neither
evade the gender question in a revolutionary perspective, nor in daily
life and survival.
Let us be optimistic because, chronologically speaking, we have never
been so close to the communist revolution!
Down with the proletariat! Down with men ! Down with women !
Long live anarchy, long live Communism!
The Incendo Crew
[1] See, for example, Sabine Melchior-Bonnet et Catherine Salles (dir.),
Histoire du mariage, Paris, Robert Laffont, 2009, 1229 p.
[2] See Philippe AriĂšs, LâEnfant et la vie familiale sous lâAncien
RĂ©gime, Paris, Seuil, 1975, 322 p.
[3] See, for example, Jacques Le Goff, « Le christianisme a libéré les
femmes » [sic], LâHistoire, n° 245, juillet-aoĂ»t 2000, p. 34â38.
[4] Beware, the public sphere does not only cover what concerns
production (for example, politics). The unseen separation into two
spheres is a necessary condition for capitalism, which needs the worker
to be « free » (unlike the slave).
[5] It is only through ease or laziness that we sometimes write that «
capitalism does this or that. » It is neither a monster who makes
perverse decisions, nor a cold machine run by a secret committee, but a
social relationship. It must therefore be understood as « the
development of capitalism entails⊠» or « has consequences⊠», etc.
Nevertheless, the State is there to give the broad guidelines necessary
for the development of the capitalist mode of production (sometimes
against the particular interests of the capitalists but often following
the indications of the most lucid of them).
[6] The reproduction of the labor power includes the daily reproduction
of the worker (food, clothing, heating, etc.) and the « generational »
reproduction of the working class (making and raising children).
[7] In France, women got the right to vote in 1944 ; in 1945, the legal
notion of a âwomanâs salaryâ was abolished; in 1965, married women were
(at long last !) allowed to have a professional activity or open a bank
account without their husbandsâ permission.
[8] Or, according to another translation: âthe peculiar character of the
supremacy of the husband over the wife in the modern family, the
necessity of creating real social equality between them, and the way to
do it, will only be seen in the clear light of day when both possess
legally complete equality of rights. » Friedrich Engels, The Origin of
the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884).
[9] See, for example, Nigel Coleâs film, We want sex equality, Great
Britain, 2010, 113 min.
[10] It also allows the State to limit the costs of collective equipment
that provide part of the reproduction of the labor power.
[11] A very good example. In this sector, women are entrusted with the
maintenance of the interior of the buildings while the men work outside.
[12] On appropriation, see Paola Tabet, La Construction sociale de
lâinĂ©galitĂ© des sexes. Des outils et des corps, Paris-MontrĂ©al,
LâHarmattan, 1998, 206 p
[13] Raising a child on only one wage is difficult. Compared to the
1960s and 1970s, womenâs wages are no longer a supplementary wage, but
the necessary second wage, generally lower than that of men.
[14] In 1970, the French State set up the first financial aid for women
raising children on their own. These measures were subsequently
developed with the increase in the number of single-parent families. The
State partially substitutes itself for the missing parent (usually the
father).
[15] These are only early days in France. US troops deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan comprised 12% of women. In these two countries, the Marines
have been testing for a few years an entirely female combat unit whose
results are highly appreciated by their command. We have not finished
with sexuationâŠ
[16] The male (non-mixed) sectors tend to be reduced to a few bastions
of very high-level positions, which can be explained by co-option and
fear of competition (the number of places is not extensible, and the old
financial sharks do not look favourably on young sharks swimming near
themâŠ). The slowness of the feminisation of positions of power or
prestige is also explained by a process of replacement of the
generations: today women are in the majority in many schools and the
famous example of the antagonism between man surgeons and woman nurses
will soon be over. In France, in 1995, women accounted for 16% of
surgeons under 35 years of age, 36.6% in 2006, and 60% of surgical
graduates in 2006. Among judges, parity was achieved in 2001, but 2005,
82% of future magistrates were women. On these issues, see especially
Sylvie Schweitzer, Femmes de pouvoir. Une histoire de lâĂ©galitĂ©
professionnelle en Europe (XIXe-XXIe siĂšcle), Paris, Payot, 2010, 258 p.
[17] See, for example, « Plus de femmes, plus de profits », Libération,
04/03/2004. In France, in 2010, the purpose of setting quotas on boards
of directors in large companies was not ethical but economic. To achieve
leadership positions, women need to be more skilled than men. This may
explain that.
[18] « What business leaders have accepted for their wives, they no
longer tolerate for their daughters », see Christine Ducros,
Marie-AmĂ©lie Lombard, « Ces femmes Ă la conquĂȘte des conseils
dâadministration », 14/10/2010, www.lefigaro.fr
[19] Even if one can find examples of husbands staying at home to care
for the kids because he earns less than his wife, these are only a few
exceptions. Social mixing being what it is, it is more common to see a
couple of senior Parisian executives have domestic labor done by a nanny
of African origin (idem for the Shanghai bourgeois couple and their
Filipino maid).
[20] One even gets extreme cases where, as one study has shown, German
scholars choose not to have children : between 60 and 80% depending on
the landers. See Sylvie Schweitzer, op. cit., p. 170. Would capitalist
women no longer ensure their reproductive function?
[21] In the 1970s, the FHAR proclaimed that, by definition, homosexuals
do not perpetuate the property of the bourgeoisie : »Thanks to us,
heritage is fucked ! No more heirs!â. So homosexuals were to play a
revolutionary role. Today, this becomes an issue for gays and lesbians
from the bourgeois classes, which explains the current evolution of
legislation in favor of homosexual adoption and marriage. In the
bourgeois classes, the possibilities of transgressing social norms are
greater.
[22] There is no definition of that term. Each feminist group uses it at
will, often as an equivalent of « male dominance. » Hence the need, in
order to use it, to define it.
[23] OCDE, Assurer le bien-ĂȘtre des familles, 2011, 275 p.
[24] But proletarian women can go on strike so that their working
conditions are in line with their role as mothers (for example, to leave
work earlier).
[25] Watchdogs and Neither Whore nor Submissive are anti-sexist French
organisations. Les Chiennes de garde (âchienneâ is a female dog in
French), founded in 1999, focuses on the media and public sphere,
whereas Ni Putes ni soumises was initially created in 2003 against
anti-woman violence in deprived areas. Broadly speaking, Les Chiennes de
garde are more âmiddle classâ, and Ni Putes ni soumises allegedly more
concerned with âpeople of colorâ and ethnic diversity: its woman
president left office to hold a ministerial post between 2007 and 2010
(editorâs note).
[26] In 2010, French law banned wearing face-covering headgear. This has
created an on-going controversy loaded with religious and/or racist
overtones (editorâs note).
[27] Guess who exploits whom.
[28] For example, the program Le Complot des cagoles [a feminist radio
show] on the strike of the cashiers of Carrefour in Marseille in 2008.
[29] The FHAR was a famous Parisian movement founded in 1971, resulting
from a union between lesbian feminists and gay activists. For more
information, see: Constance Chatterley, Gilles Dauvé, Feminism
Illustrated, 2018 (translation of a French brochure) (editorâs note).
[30] It is this ideological character that we criticize, not the fact of
seeking those ancient techniques which can prove useful in our daily
life (and which will be very useful to us after the revolution).
[31] Concept forged by feminists in counterpoint to male fraternity. All
women are sisters and must develop relationships of deep solidarity.
[32] And also among pro-feminists.
[33] Rote Zora, « Chaque cĆur est une bombe Ă retardement », in Anonyme,
En Catimini⊠histoire et communiqués des Rote Zora, 2009, p. 72. Text
originally published in No. 6 of RevolutionÀre Zorn, January 1981.
[34] Even if the deconstructed man were no longer oppressive in his
circle, he would always be considered as such by the system, and this «
default » position would continue to determine him in relation to the
others.
[35] One is tempted to bring this ideology closer to the political
lesbianism in line with Monique Wittig, who thought « lesbians are not
women » because they escape masculine domination in the private sphere
(« La pensée straight », Monique Wittig, Questions féministes, n° 7,
février 1980 ). In reality, lesbians can escape individual
appropriation, but not collective appropriation.
[36] One can quite be queer and teach in a great university, or director
of the national Odéon theatre in Paris [allusion to Olivier Py, famous
French playwright and director], and so on. Without these institutions
being shaken. It is however more difficult today to be queer and
bricklayerâŠ
[37] This change in attitudes and relations between men and women during
the early days of the Russian Revolution was highlighted by Alexandra
Kollontai (Marxisme et révolution sexuelle, Paris, Maspéro, 1973) and
Clara Zetkin (Batailles pour les femmes, Paris, Editions sociales,
1980).
[38] And even Barricata! (cultural magazine of the redskins of Paris).
Special dedication for their n° 21, summer 2010.
[39] As for example, the « Antipatriarchal Motion » adopted by the
French Coordination des groupes anarchistes (CGA) in November 2011 (this
caused the organisation to split) presents genders as a system of social
categories, and firmly criticizes essentialism. If the finding is
relevant, the proposed solutions are somewhat tame.
[40] For example, the groups / journals Théorie communiste and SIC,
International Journal for Communisation. They are almost the only ones,
in the ultra-left environments, to attempt an analysis of genders , and
especially to affirm that one cannot evade the question (obviously, one
has to cross the barrier of their very strange literary style). We are
talking here about France, because reflections on gender issues seem
less taboo in other countries.
[41] Marin Karmitz, Coup pour coup, France, 1972, 90 mn.
[42] Depending on the country and according to its stage of development,
capital is organized differently. The societies that we can rightly call
« patriarchal » are still numerous (in the Maghreb, in Asia, etc.).
Nevertheless, the development of the capitalist mode of production
(especially because of the entry of women into the labor market) leads
to the inevitable evolution of sexuation and the appearance of the «
problem » of women (see China, the Middle East, Argentina, etc.). The
West cannot be delimited geographically : its categories impose
themselves on the planet as the capitalist mode of production unfolds
and deepens.
[43] This does not, of course, prevent the black, Arab or female
proletarians in Western countries from becoming more discriminated
against and exploited. Each country needs overexploited and underpaid
workers, which vary in different regions of the world.
[44] The State cannot, however, entirely ensure the reproduction of the
labor power, because the worker would no longer need to go to work.
[45] See, for those brave enough to read it, « Distinction de genres,
programmatisme et communisation », Théorie communiste, n° 23, mai 2010,
p. 99â128.
[46] While not all young proletarians entering the labor market have the
same « value », this is partly due to their parentsâ âcultural capitalâ
which has little to do with domestic labor : yet the main cause is the
schooling and training theyâve had in public institutions. Home is not a
labor-power producing factory.
[47] Single mothers perform domestic labour for the sole benefit of
capital.
[48] OECD, op. cit.
[49] In France, for example, women are more highly educated than men.
Education and training are an investment. Motherhood therefore acts as a
brake on the return on investment⊠for the upper classes.
[50] Only the proletarians, because of their interests contradictory to
those of the capitalists, can « trigger » the revolution.
[51] For some years now, the concept of communisation has been echoed at
international level.
[52] Quatre millions de jeunes travailleurs, A world without money:
communism, 1975.
[53] â In the course of the revolutionary struggle, the abolition of the
division of labour, of the State, of exchange, of any kind of property;
the extension of a situation in which everything is freely available as
the unification of human activity, that is to say the abolition of
classes, of both public and private spheres â these are all âmeasuresâ
for the abolition of capital, imposed by the very needs of the struggle
against the capitalist class. The revolution is communisation; communism
is not its project or result. One does not abolish capital for communism
but by communism, or more specifically, by its production. â, «
Editorial », SIC, n° 1, november 2011, p. 6.
[54] It cannot be an « anti-capitalist » revolution. The State is not,
in itself, capitalist, it is only a tool at the service of the ruling
class. See Bernard Lyon, « Nous ne sommes pas Anti », Meeting, n° 2,
septembre 2005, p. 4â6.
[55] The french punk band Rage against the kebab sings it melodiously :
« To communise is to destroy »⊠but thereâs more to it.
[56] In a struggle, the most conservative prole, the most stupid
social-democrat student can be transformed. Those who participated
actively in struggles of a certain magnitude (from May 1968 to the CPE)
probably realized this. [In France in 2006, the âCPEâ â a law that
increased labor deregulation and casualization, especially for young
people â met with mass protests and demonstrations.] Otherwise, a few
hundred books on the history of the class struggle are enough to prove
it. Obviously, the capitalists not playing in the same camp cannot
benefit from this transformation⊠Hence the special treatment that will
be reserved for them. As for those who see the proletarians as vile,
individualistic and self â deprecating (by nature?) beings, we can, for
example, refer them to the many studies on the reactions of the victims
of the « natural » catastrophes as long as the State does not interfere.
See, for example, Rebecca Solnit, A Paradise Built in Hell : The
Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster (Penguin Group, 2009).
[57] It would be necessary to study more specifically the involvement of
women in contemporary struggles (in 2001 in Argentina or today in
strikes in Bangladesh, China, France, etc.).
[58] This raises a perhaps fundamental question that we have not dealt
with frontally: what would be the reaction of bourgeois women to the
revolution? Will they only intervene as bourgeois (defend their class
interests), or can we imagine that they would also intervene as women?
What forms could this take? Although this seems unlikely, can we imagine
« solidarities » between women, beyond the classes? In both ways ? This
leads to another question no less thorny and equally fundamental : is
there a contradiction between genders ? In other words, is there a
double contradiction (within classes and within genders) ? Big debate in
our small teamâŠ
[59] For example, Kollontai shows that the new economic and social
conditions at the beginning of the Russian Revolution led to the
dissolution of the nuclear family (collective canteens, etc.) and that «
the Communist State can do nothing about it« , op. cit., p. 211.
[60] The booklet of Michael Seidman, âWomenâs Subversive Individualism
in Barcelona during the 1930sâ, International Review of Modern History,
n° XXXVII (1992) (https://libcom.org/files/women-subversive.pdf) shows
the resistance of women (strikes, anti-work actions) to the persistence
of the old world. Here the CNT-UGT administration tried to rationalize
the exploitation, and did not take into account at all the reproduction
question.
[61] Men will therefore have to roll up their sleeves (and thereby
contribute to the end of sexuation), or they will not (which would in
fact derail the revolutionary process).
[62] An example sometimes mentioned is the creation in 2005 of
Movimiento de Mujeres Desocupadas that broke with the piqueteros
majority movements. See Bruno Astarian, Le Mouvement des piqueteros.
Argentine 1994â2006, Paris, Ăchanges et Mouvement, 2007, p. 42â43.
[63] There will undoubtedly still be some lost souls wishing to marry
for example to « prove their love », but there will be no more mayor to
do it, no more civil status to register, no law to enshrine it in, etc.
(Too bad for gays who will just have won the right to marry !). There
will also probably be some others who « need » authority, discipline, or
who have a taste for power⊠but, unlike in the present world, nothing
will exist to flatter such « defects »âŠ
[64] « In comparison with capitalist criteria, communist abundance may
be rather frugal and basic. » Collectif, Histoire critique de
lâultragauche, Marseille, Senonevero, 2009, p. 205.
[65] In the Russian and Spanish episodes, we frequently find the figure
of the revolutionary who, after his day of militancy, returns to his
home where male dominance persists and where he behaves as a husband and
treats his wife as a skivvy⊠But in this case women were not
participating in the struggle and the revolutionary process had already
lost its momentum.
[66] See Paola Tabet, op. cit. : To compensate for the low fertility in
the human species, women must be exposed to optimal coitus, and
therefore to the risk of pregnancy. The best technique is marriage (or
couple life). Thus, women are not « always receptive, » but they are «
always copulable. »
[67] A comrade thinks that when communism is established, « we will not
have children, but there will be children everywhere« . Another person,
equally a comrade, thinks « There wonât be children any more« .
[68] Supposing itâs âconsciousness-raisingâ we need, above all letâs be
conscious of our limits and of the modesty of our actions and
capacities. As the popular saying goes, « it is not the revolutionaries
who will make the revolution, but the revolution that will make the
revolutionaries.« . Kind of puts things in perspective, doesnât it?âŠ