Feminism, Class and Anarchism La relación entre la sociedad de clases and capitalism
The defining characteristic of capitalist society is largely divided into two basic classes: the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) made of big business owners, and the working class (the proletariat), which is more or less everyone else-the vast majority of people who work for wages. There are, of course, a whole range of gray within this definition of class society, and the working class itself is made of a homogeneous group of people, but includes, for example, unskilled workers and most what is commonly called the middle class and may have therefore large differences in income and opportunity for different sectors of the working class broadly defined.
"middle class" is a problematic term because, although used frequently, seldom clear exactly who you mean. Usually "middle class" refers to workers such as independent professionals, small business owners and low administrative and media. However, these middle classes are not really a separate class, they are not independent of the process of exploitation and capital accumulation that constitutes capitalism. In general are on the boundaries of one of the two major classes, the capitalist class and hardworking. (1)
important thing to analyze society as composed of two fundamental classes is to understand that the economic relationship between these two classes, large business owners and people working for them, based on exploitation and therefore these two classes have fundamentally opposing material interests.
Capitalism and business are, by nature, motivated by profit. The employee performs work that creates wealth. Some of this wealth is given to the employee's salary package, the rest he is the boss, adding to its profits (if employees are not giving the gain does not employ). Thus, the owner business exploits its employees and accumulate capital. It is part of the interest of the business owner to maximize their profits and keep costs low wages, is in the interest of employees to maximize their pay and improve working conditions. This conflict of interest and the exploitation of one class by another minority class, is inherent to capitalist society. Loa anarchists aim to abolish the capitalist class system and create a classless society.
The relationship between sexism and capitalism
Sexism is a source of injustice which differs from the type of class exploitation mentioned above in several ways. Most of women living and working with men at least part of their lives they have relationships with men like his father, son, brother, lover, partner, husband or friend. Women and men have no competing interests inherent in a way, we do not want to abolish the sexes but to abolish the hierarchy of power between the sexes and create a society where women and men can live freely and equally together.
capitalist society depends on class exploitation. Not yet depends sexism and could in theory accommodate a large extent a similar treatment of women and men. This is obvious if we look at what liberation struggle female achievement in various societies around the world in the past, say, 100 years in which there were dramatic improvements in the situation of women and the assumptions that underlie what roles are natural and are good for women. Capitalism, with the passage of time, has adapted to the changing role and status of women in society.
The end of sexism will therefore not necessarily the end of capitalism. Similarly, sexism can continue even after having been abolished capitalist class society. Sexism is possibly the earliest form of oppression that existed, not only precedes capitalism, but there is evidence that sexism also preceded earliest forms of class society (2). As societies have developed the exact nature of the oppression of women, the particular form this takes has changed. Under capitalism the oppression of women has its own special character which the system has taken advantage of the historical oppression of women to maximize their profits.
But, how realistic is the end of the oppression of women under capitalism? There are many ways in which women are oppressed as sex in society today-economically, ideologically, physically, etc .- and is likely to continue feminist struggles that will lead to further improvements in the status of women. However, although it is possible to see that the fight various aspects of sexism are losing strength, there are aspects of capitalism that make it very unlikely the full economic equality for women and men under capitalism. This is because capitalism is based on the need to maximize their profits in a system such that women are at a natural disadvantage.
In capitalist society, the ability to give birth to a fault. The biological role of women means that (if they have children) will have taken at least leave with some salary in his job. Its biological role also makes them ultimately body responsible for any guy to bring to the world. Consequently, the paid maternity leave, leave for one parent, parental leave, leave for care of sick children, free childcare and services for child care, etc., Will always be especially relevant to women. For this reason women are more economically vulnerable than men under capitalism: attacks on gains as childcare, permits a parent, etc. always disproportionately affect women more than men. Yet without full economic equality is difficult to see an end to the unequal power relations between women and men and the ideology associated sexism. So, although we can say that capitalism could accommodate the equality of men and women, the reality is that the full realization of this equality is very unlikely achieved under capitalism. This is simply because there is a financial penalty related to the biology of women, which makes capitalist society, driven by profit, is inherently biased against women.
The struggle for the emancipation of women in working class movements
One of the best examples of how the struggle for change can bring real and lasting change in society is the great improvement in the status of women, their rights and quality of life, all achievements that the struggle for women's liberation has achieved in various countries around the world. Without this struggle (which I call feminism though not all, and all who fought against women's subordination would have been identified as feminist), women clearly would not have made the giant strides we have had.
Historically, the struggle for the emancipation of women was evident within the anarchist movement and other socialist movements. However, these movements as a whole tended to have a somewhat ambiguous relationship with women's liberation and other broader feminist struggle.
Although it has always been central to anarchism's emphasis on the abolition of all hierarchies of power, anarchism has its roots in class struggle, the struggle to defeat capitalism, with its ultimate aim of creating a classless society. The oppression of women is not so intimately tied to capitalism and class struggle, the liberation of women has historically been and remains largely seen as a secondary objective in the creation of a classless society, not as important or as fundamental as class struggle.
But who does not is important to feminism? Insurance for Most women in socialist movements the assumption that a profound transformation of power relations between women and men was part of socialism was vital. In any case, tended to have more men than women active in socialist circles, and the men played a dominant role. The demands of the women were marginalized by the primacy of class and also because the issues that affect workers also affect workers similarly, the same was not true for the particular themes of oppression of women as sex . Social and economic equality of women was often seen as something that conflicted with the material interest and convenience of man. Equality of women required profound changes in the division of labor both at home and work as changes in the whole social system of male authority. To achieve equality for women a reassessment of identity should also be done in the "male identity" could no longer depend on being seen as stronger or more capable than women.
Women tended to make the connection between personal and political emancipation, with hopes that socialism would produce a new woman and a man back to democratize all aspects of human relationships. Anyway, found it very difficult, example, to convince their classmates that the unequal division of household labor was a major political issue. In the words of Hannah Mitchell, social activist and feminist of the early twentieth century in England, on a double shift in and out of home:
"Even my Sunday rest as it was soon discovered that much of the discourse Socialist Freedom of speech was just that these young men and socialists expected Sunday dinner and tea with great homemade cakes, meat pies and cakes just like his fellow reactionaries. " (3)
Women anarchists in Spain the era of social revolution in 1936 had similar complaints to find the equality between men and women did not get along with personal relationships. Martha Ackelsberg notes in her book Free Women of Spain that although equality of women and men was officially adopted by the English anarchist movement as early as 1872:
"Virtually all of my informants lamented that no matter how militant were in the streets, to the most committed anarchists hoped to be "masters" in their homes, a complaint echoed in many articles written in newspapers and magazines movement during this period. "
Sexism also occurred in the public sphere, where, for example, women sometimes were militants who were not treated seriously and with respect for their fellow men. Women also face problems in their struggle for equality within the union movement in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the unequal situation of men and women in paid work was an uncomfortable topic. The men in the unions argued that women undercut the wages of organized workers and some believed that the solution was completely excluded women from work and raising male wage for men could support their families. In the mid-nineteenth century Britain a tailor summarized the effects of women's work as follows:
"When I first started working in this field [cut vests], very few tailors employed in it. A few white vests were given under the idea that women would make them more fairly than men ... But from the rising steam, masters and overseers have looked everywhere for hands that could do the job for less than average. Then there was the compete with the husband wife, daughter and wife ... If he will not reduce the price of their work to that of a woman, must remain unemployed. " (4)
The policy of excluding women from certain unions often was determined by competition to lower wages rather than sexist ideology, but ideology also played a role. In the snuff industry in the early twentieth century in Tampa in the U.S., for example, an anarcho-syndicalist union, La Resistance, formed mostly by Cuban exiles, he sought to organize all workers across the city. More than a quarter of its members were women Plucking the snuff. The union was denounced as anti-American unmasculinity and another union, the Industrial Union of Manufacturers of Cigars pursuing exclusionary strategies and "very reluctantly organized the workers in a separate section and secondary union. "(5)
The driving force for the liberation of women was
feminism in general is well documented that the struggle for the emancipation of women has not always been supported and that historically women have faced sexism within the organizations for the class struggle. The undeniable achievements in the freedom of women that are achieved thanks to those men and women within organizations fighting class and without them, who challenged the sexism and fought for improvements in conditions for women. It is the movement feminist in all its variants (middle class, working class, socialist, anarchist ...) that has led the way in women's liberation movement and not focused on class struggle. I emphasize this point because although today the anarchist movement as a whole does support an end to the oppression of women, there remains a distrust of feminism, with anarchists and other socialists sometimes taking away from it because it often lacks a class analysis. Yet it is the very feminism that we must be thankful for each real progress women have made.
How relevant is the class when it comes to sexism?
What are the common approaches to feminism by anarchists who raise the class struggle today? At one end of reaction against feminism have the viewpoint of absolute reduction to the class: Just import the class. This dogmatic view tends to see feminism as divisive (how safe that sexism is no more divisive than feminism?) And a distraction from class struggle and holds that any sexism that does exist will disappear automatically with the end of capitalism and class society.
However, a more common approach from anarchism to feminism is the recognition that sexism does exist, it will not automatically terminated with the end of capitalism and to struggle against him here and now. Still, as mentioned earlier, the anarchists have difficulty separating themselves from the pain feminism "conventional" for their lack of class analysis. Instead, it is emphasized that the experience of sexism is different in each class and thus the oppression of women is a class issue. It is quite true that wealth to some extent mitigates the impact of sexism: It is less difficult, for example, get an abortion if you do not have to worry about how to raise money for the trip abroad, issues of who does the most work domestic and care children become less important if you can pay someone else to help. Also, depending on your socio-economic background will have different priorities.
However, in this constant emphasis on the experience of sexism is differentiated by class, the anarchists seem to overlook or ignore something that is also true: that the class experience is differentiated by sex. The problem, injustice, sexism is that there are unequal relations between women and men within the working class and indeed the whole society. Women are always at a disadvantage compared to men of their own class.
a greater or lesser As sexism affects women of all classes, but a feminist analysis that emphasizes the class is often criticized. But the class is relevant to all aspects of sexism? What is relevant for example the class in sexual violence? The kind of insurance is not always the most important point in all cases. Sometimes there is an insistence on taking a class analysis for all feminist positions if needed to give credibility to feminism, to validate it as a worthwhile struggle for anarchists that raise the class struggle. But this instance misses the central is, surely, we're against sexism, "in all its forms to any affecting?
If a person is beaten to death in a racist attack , do we need to know the class of the victim before expressing anger? Is not racism if we are concerned is that the victim is a well-paid member of the ruling class? Similarly, what if someone is discriminated against at work because of their race, gender or sexuality, whether that person cleaning staff or a college professor, to be sure both bad and wrong for the same reasons? Clearly, the liberation of women is, in its own right, something worth fighting and, in general, oppression and injustice against which things worth fighting for, no matter oppressed class.
Do women and men of the world unite against sexism?
Since one thing women have in common across classes and cultures is the oppression, to some extent, can we call ourselves as sex women (and men) in the world to unite against sexism? Or are there opposing class interests that would render such a strategy?
conflicts of interest that may appear safe for women of working class and the rich middle class or ruling class. For example, in France at a feminist conference in 1900 delegates split on the issue the minimum wage for domestic servants, as they would hurt the pockets of those who could afford servants. Today, the slogans of absence with pay paternity or child care services will face opposition from business owners who do not want to get smaller profits. Feminism is not always good for generating profits in the short term. Struggles for economic equality with men in capitalist society necessarily include a continuous struggle and continuous claims-essentially a class struggle.
Then, the different class interests can sometimes impede the feminist unity on a practical level. Is nevertheless far more important for anarchists to emphasize the connection to the larger feminist movement to emphasize the differences. After all, the ruling classes are in the minority and the vast majority of women in society share a common interest in gaining economic equality with men. Also, many feminist issues are not affected by such conflicts of interest based on class but concern all women to varying degrees. In what has to do with reproductive rights, for example, anarchists in Ireland have been and continue to be involved in pro-choice groups [for legalization of abortion] by capitalist parties without compromising our policies because, it has to do with the fight against sexism that denies women control over their own bodies, this is the best tactic. Finally, it is also worth noting that often the rejection of "middle-class feminism" comes from the same anarchists / socialists who embrace the Marxist definition of class (given at the beginning of this article) that would place most people strong middle class in the wide range of working class. Reforms
not
reformism
There are two approaches we can take toward feminism: we can distance other focusing on the feminist critique of reformist feminism or we can fully support the struggle for feminist reforms while we constantly want more! This is especially important if we want to make anarchism more attractive to women (a recent Irish Times poll showed that feminism is important for more than 50% of Irish women). In the anarchist vision of a future society with its guiding principle, to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities, no institutional bias against women as there is in capitalism. Besides the benefits for both women and men have a lot anarchism to offer women in particular, in terms of sexual freedom, personal economic and going deeper and offers more than anything especially precarious equality can be achieved under capitalism.
Deirdre Hogan (originally published in RAG No. 2, Fall 2007)
