malcolm's last post on marxist-feminism

tgs at tgs at
Wed Nov 9 21:20:58 MST 1994

Two problems I have with your analysis

1) AS Lulu has already argued, analyses like yours reduce all base/superstructure
models to "mono-causal" explanations. I have no problem with saying or arguing
that patriarchal attitudes and oppressions have an autonomy from the capitalist
economic system, the capitalists' corporate media, etc.  But the questions you
leave begging, are a) why does patriarchy achieve such a strong hold when
it does in history--i.e., with the development of class society and the state.
Why does it become so powerful?  Because  it serves the rising ruling class,
which, according to Reich, is the tribal chieftan--aspiring state power wielder
and surplus collecter, who begins to enforce a system of dowries, systems of
inheritance, etc. and thus domestication of women and children and their

2) You reduce "class location" to common culture, a la Weber's substitution
of status for class.  Class is not a matter of culture; if you make it so
then the concept becomes meaningless.  Since the concept of a working class
seems  so confusing for you, let's talk about the bourgeoisie.  You do admit
that the bourgeoisie exist, don't you?  But do they share a completely
homogenous culture?  Do Wealthy  bankers enjoy the same culture as small
factory owners in shithole towns in Pennsylvania (my grandfather and grand uncle

, for example)  No.


More information about the Marxism mailing list