The Woman Question: Reply to Melvin
MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
Wed Apr 24 04:26:58 MDT 2002
>Melvin, your attempt to fit the woman question onto the Procrustean
>Bed of the class struggle has distorted your reasoning beyond
> recognition, and hurts my brain. In other words, I don't understand
>what you're saying.
>The woman question is certainly bound up with class. But the ideology
>used to rationalize this form of oppression is a relic of pre-class society,
>the mentality of slavery. This is what I would call an instance of
>combined and uneven development of history: the great emancipatory
>movements of history have largely left women behind in the ashes and
>cinders of the Sacred Hearth. For a woman to learn to fight for her
>own freedoms, she must first learn to throw off her slave-like
I condensed your reply into the above, which does it No real justice. You
speak on behalf of the emancipation of an enormous sector of the proletariat
that has a womb. Such is your presentation, which is not hostile or
unacceptable to any class-conscious worker. Communist are defacto political
leaders, so what you write is important. I am attempting to articulate the
voice of a class - specifically its lower sector without regard to the
distinctions within the class and society. This was not my strategy in the
last period of history. It is the class demand - not the womb, which will
unite the class, because the various segments of the class have a multitude
of opinions about the womb, nationality, sexuality and everything else in
Reaction is not against the womb but favors - as a class standpoint,
preserving the womb on the basis of property relations. You make this clear.
Actually, the womb unites us all irrespective of the ideological sphere. That
is the problem. All men are of course brothers and all women are sisters.
This assertion is indisputable and the basis of life. I repudiate this
formulation as an ideological banner, because it is the banner of the
bourgeoisie. The basis of unity for the proletariat is class in my book - no
compromise, not one molecule of oscillation.
You are hostile to the bourgeoisie but the formulation of the "womb" does not
say, the proletariat comes first. Comrade, I don't think you misunderstand
the Women Question or the question of the indigenousness people in
pre-capitalist development. Your compilation of a vast sum of data is honest
and note-worthy, but you summarize this data on the basis of a clarion call
for someone else liberation other that that of the proletariat.
The proletariat is a historically evolved class formation that is a specific
product of capitalist social relations of production. Women are not a product
of capitalist social relations of production. Further, society is in
transition to another mode of production and classes are the decisive element
in any mode of production, not gender.
The Internet makes it possible to fight in the ideological sphere in a
different way. The inequality of women is historic and indicates to the
degree we remain within barbarism. The fundamental inequality of women in
today's world is bound up with the status of their labor. Suzy homemaker is
dead in the main and women today appear as a mass of propertyless
proletarians. The status of labor subordinates all aspects of history to its
goals. The liberation of women only becomes possible - possible, with the
emancipation of the status of labor as a commodity.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism