How have historians differed on the potential of a Socialist Feminist alliance?

In 1975 Hartman likened Socialism’s relationship with Feminism as a “Marriage"[1].The “emancipatory potential"[2] of Socialism has long been the main attraction, and it’s on that basis that comparisons with Feminism have been made. With the exception of benign philanthropists or intellectuals, support[3] has almost exclusively emanated from the underprivileged. This 19^th Century utopian epistemology was first conceived in Sir Thomas More’s 1512 novel[4], but it began to receive greater attention from 1822 when ‘sociare’[5] first appeared in a French magazine. It remained to be seen whether socialism could transcend class boundaries and attract middle class feminists to its ranks. The historiographical input to these considerations has been prodigious. In over 40 studies reviewed, a rudimentary statistical analysis reveals that more than 60% of the studies had their origins in United States of America[6]. Initially the projects published in the US over the last 40 years have been fairly dismissive of the potential for a Socialist-Feminist alliance. In addition, the post modern critique of “truth" and “progress" has led to an inevitable undermining of Socialism[7]. Also the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 brought almost wholesale dismissal of Socialism, that is until its recent resurgence in the so called 2^nd (Latin America) and 3^rd world countries (Africa). This has provoked increasingly optimistic interpretations of women’s contribution hitherto and the future potential of socialism. Consequently historians have since disagreed greatly over the extent and success of women’s involvement in Socialism. Several key questions have arisen from this debate. Firstly in the dialectical revolutions conceived by scientific Socialism, what role was envisaged for women? Furthermore, does evidence correspond with Goldstones opinion that “the only participants in revolutions have been isolated male characters"[8]? Indeed could the ‘withering away’ of the state, free women from the spectre of biological determinism? Finally, a consideration of the effect that successive Socialist revolutions have had on the status of women is merited, in particular how have historians viewed the claims that it offers women an emancipatory potential? Does the ‘marriage’ of Feminism and Socialism have a future or should it be annulled on the grounds of entrapment?

Socialists have been unashamed in their subordination of Feminist goals. In every movement studied the female characters such as Kollantai, Zetkin or Luxembourg, have argued that the “strategic gendered interests"[9] identified by Maxine Molyneux were best served by Socialism. Philosophers such as Engels have prophesised that “Abolition of the class struggle will bring equality of the sexes"[10]. The very classlessness which it espouses in theory, neutralises effects of gender inequalities and Feminist goals become a logical conclusion. Debatably divorce, abortion, equal pay, equal political representation and above all the liberation from the procreation agenda (contrastingly advanced in capitalism), presented a real opportunity for the emancipation of women. Of 19^th Century ontology’s in circulation, Kollantai “regarded socialism as the necessary context for the emancipation of women"[11]. Indeed Francois Mitterrand’s claim that “One cannot be a Socialist without being a Feminist"[12] typifies the relative European consensus for the potential of a commonality of purpose. Unsurprisingly, American Historians have rejected the likelihood that Socialism could ever deliver upon these promises. Hilda Scott cautioned, “Socialism does not automatically liberate women"[13]. In particular, it is the fluctuating emphasis from division of labour and calls to increase birth rates, which have been visible in Cuba, China and the USSR, that US Historians have rebuked. Not all American commentators were uniform in their opposition to the potential of Socialism. Both Susan Bordo and Barbara Taylor warned that, “One cannot sever visions of sexual and class equality without jeopardizing both goals"[14]. The fact that the women’s international movement has become so intertwined with the Socialist movement ever since its early inception by Klara Zetkin[15], meant that the extrication of Feminism from Socialism was not straightforward. B. Epstein’s study reveals attempts made to develop a unitary movement “that would encompass Socialism and Feminism". It was a fear of the irretrievable damage that could be done to the Feminist cause that has caused more radical attempts at a unitary theory to be formulated. Latin America has led the way in developing this hypothesis. In 1975, Women’s Year was held in Mexico City, where 3rd world countries condemned Feminists for their denunciation of Socialism. The possible “Convergence of Marxist and Feminist theory" in Latin America comes at a time when parallel notions of “dissolving the hyphen" in the US was put on the back burner[16]. The prefigurative and deterministic nature of Marxism [17] has woven an enchantment for many seeking emancipation. This is in stark contrast to Feminists, who have been reluctant to develop a theory (or explanan) on what a society without male domination may look like.

Contrary to the consensual opinion among much of US academics,

‘Bearded Guerillas’[18] were not the only agents in Socialist revolutions. Women have led, contributed intellectually, organized, directly caused and even fought in revolutions throughout the 19^th-20^th Centuries. Gerda Lerner was rash in her acceptance that high politics was a male preserve[19]. Alexandra Kollantai’s leadership of Russian women (1914-52) was groundbreaking. Her strength of character in opposing Lenin’s actions in Kronstadt, in July 1921, and the subsequent betrayal of ideology in the formulation of the NEP, shows her independence of action. Certainly her very survival through the Stalinist regime is in itself an achievement. Beatrice Farnsworth’s illuminating account reveals that the emancipation of women was foremost in her motivation arguing, “Kollantai fought for the sexual emancipation of women"[20]. Rosa Luxembourg’s guidance of the Sparticsts in post war Germany (1919), though terminal, was equally pivotal. Similarly impressive was the ideological contribution both women had in Marxist Ideology. In Kollantai’s case, editorship over the Rabonista form 1915 (which had a circulation of 40,000), and the translation of Marx’s writings, collectively with her great skills of orating, demonstrate constructive contribution. Luxembourg’s involvement in the 2^nd International and her numerous offerings to Marxist Ideology cement her legacy. Surprisingly in the US, Alice Henry’s impact within the workers movement (WTUL) was considerable, both in her role as a journalist and her leadership of the 1909-11 Chicago Garment strike. Though Australian born and a supporter of White Supremacy, she led a close knit movement where “Women socialists from working class immigrant backgrounds placed a loyalty to Socialism first"[21]. This was just one example of the solidarity and consciousness prevalent in early 20^th Century urban women’s movements. There is extensive evidence that women had begun to advance organizational skills. Germany’s Klara Zetkin managed to form the largest women’s Socialist movement in the world, with membership of the SPD as high as 175,000 by 1914. Later, assimilation with the main party, following government legislation, resulted in a dilution of policy and a reduction in the influence of female Socialists. Moreover, it provides first hand evidence of the in-house hypocrisy of male-dominated Socialist movements. It was a tribute to Zetkin that she managed to force feminist emancipation onto SPD manifesto for the 1918 election. Increasing disenchantment however, caused her to spend much of her time in the USSR, though she survived as a member of the Reichstag until 1932. Respective participation in American Socialist movements, was as high as 41,000 in the Union of Garment Workers during the Chicago Strike. Buhle articulates the constant tensions Socialists had with the Feminist movement in the US in particular the Feminists desire to, "Be a force of moral good"[22]. Campaigning for issues such as the prohibition of alcohol, the Feminist movement was largely a White Anglo-Saxon preserve. Led by Frances Willard, the Christian Temperance Union (CTU) boasted a membership of 500,000. US historians such as C. Sowerwine and F. Gordon, have lamented the pathetically small support mustered by Madeleine Pelletier (Feminist Socialist) and Louise Samoneau (Suffragette) in France, a mere 2% of the overall socialist movement (respective movements in Germany and Us number 15-20%). Pelletier’s later detention in the very mental asylums she pioneered, and her trial for avocation of birth control, justify Sowerine’s rebuttal of any claim that women had achieved anything noteworthy in French Socialism. There was a distinctive Feminist ideology within Britain’s Owenite Socialism (Ann Wheeler, Emma Martin and Fanny Wright all contributed to British thinking). Barbara Taylor argued that “Owenite beliefs on communal housekeeping and child rearing"[23], represent a constructive and sustainable effort to neutralize the oppressive effects of child rearing. The direct impact, agitation such as Women’s International Day in Petrograd 12^th March 1917, demonstrates independent action and consciousness from women, albeit conforming to Maxine Moulineux’s ‘practical interests’ theory[24]. Overall, the picture of Women’s contribution to Socialism in capitalist economies is blurred. Arguably, American Historians have demonstrated an ethno-centricity in undervaluing the contribution that women have made to Socialism in the Western world. By 1980, Lerner, Butler DuBois and Buhle initiated a dialogue with “empiricists and theorists"[25] This new departure, sought to juxtapose gender along the grounds of class and race. This was an admission form the “college daughters" that their dismissal of political involvement of socialist movements (amongst others) was premature.

It would be disingenuous to levy accusations of ethno centricity at the ‘Ivy league brigade’, and not attempt to give account to historiographical discussions in Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. Valentine M. Moghadam has dedicated several works to the obliteration of Goldstones claims - citing Algeria, Eritrea, Vietnam, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Catherine Mc kinnon’s claim that nothing has changed in the relationship between Feminism and Marxism since 1973 (dismissing the negative interpretation of the fall of the Berlin Wall), is certainly one which is substantiated by developments in feudal economies. In Eritrea, Women constituted 33% of the front line armed forces (EPLF) in the Communist War of Independence 1963-1993. Eritrea has sustained its equal treatment of women following a successful revolution. During the Socialist revolution (1954-62), Algeria’s ‘fighting women’ tallied just 11,000, yet the levels of an agrarian consciousness among women were unprecedented, especially since only 4.5% were literate. This has unparalleled significance since the infrastructural difficulties posed, theoretically made such an occurrence impossible. In El Salvador successful revolutionaries such as Lorena Pena Mendosa and the rest of FMLA’s female leadership was exported to Venezuela during the 1980’s. This demonstrated the potential for transcending national boundaries. The threatened ‘Bedroom strike’ muted in Chile during the Allende episode (Dec 1971), was a forerunner in responding to Lerner’s call for women to turn their gendered tyranny back on their oppressors. Chile’s “march of the pots and pans" was less emphatic since it reinforced the gender construct. Overall, Socialism has had disproportionate success in feudal economies. The timing of these revolutions during the second wave of feminism is arguably irrelevant, since none of them could claim to have evolved an intellectual framework. What distinguishes them is the spontaneity of action, which contrasted significantly with the western movements, and consequently their inclusion within this discussion is justifiable. What perhaps is most disheartening to historians of women’s history is that Maxine Molyneux theory of ‘practical interests’ are most relevant and it’s questionable if any of the occurrences (with the exception of the FLMA movement) could ever be replicated where it not for catalytic occurrences outside Women’s control. A comparison with the respective formulations of revolutionary unrest in capitalist economies does illuminate the shortcomings in those movements, and the apparent greater rigidity of the gender constructs within that system.

The mostly widely accepted framework for ascertaining women’s status levels is that advocated by Janet Giele[26]. She has created 6 subfields with which status should be measured: Political Expression Work and Mobility Family Formation, Duration and Size Health and Sexual Control Education and Cultural Expression. Jancar is largely incorrect in her assertion that, “women have reached approximately the same status level in every communist country". Jill Bystydzienski’s comparative study of Poland and European Russia reveal substantial differences[27]. There is evidence of a considerable improvement of women’s rights of political expression under socialism. 32% of Parliamentarians were women USSR and 50% were Local Councillors, and 15% and 30% in Poland respectively (1980)[28]. Cuba is broadly comparative (35%), interestingly these figures are significantly higher than capitalist economies. Government sponsored Women’s bodies often proved constraining on women’s emancipation. The National Union of Eritrean Women (NEUW)[29] was looked upon as conservative as was Union of Czecheslovak women (1million members 1984)[30]. Additionally women’s work and mobility status had varying fortunes in respective Socialist regime. “Mao, Castro, Stalin and Khrushchev all sought to socialize women’s labour"[31] Though the motives of this socialization were arguably designed to benefit the state, there is no doubt women benefited. 90% of Russian women were in full time work, making up 30% of heavy industry (respective figures for Poland are 71% and 19%)[32]. Ironically, the aspiration of such an incursion into heavy industry substantiates, the very ‘Poverty of Theory’[33], which Barbara Epstein alluded to. More encouraging was the 40% of Lawyers that were women and the majority they enjoyed in the health service. A disparity in wages still existed with women earning just 70% of men (Poland 60%). In Hungary 80% of the workforce had been integrated. Critically, the gender structures with regard to family formation have had contradictory ramifications under Socialism. The shift in nationalist fervor which manifests itself in the “fluctuation between heroic worker and mother"[34], especially during phases of international instability exacerbated these trends. In Cuba this meant a return to the ‘casa’ in Russia, and in the Eastern Bloc it condemned women to both child-rearing and earning. No Socialist regime can claim to have removed gender bias in the private domain, yet the extent to which the government can legislate in this area is debatable. The USSR made divorce easier though the ‘perpetual influence of religion’[35], meant that only 380,000 in Poland in 1974 availed of this right. In 1978, 83% of Russian wives said they would continue working regardless of husbands’ income. A corresponding survey in Poland revealed only 40% would continue work. This is largely explained by the, “social stigma attached to being a home maker in European Russia". Women’s health and sexual control was arguably entrapped under socialism, in 1974 Abortions actually exceeded live births in European Russia (The veracity of which is impossible to ascertain since we rely on Soviet Records). Again disparity is evident within the ideology, evidenced by Castro’s claim that, “Women were natures workshop were live was forged". It was a persistence of this belief amongst the great majority of men under socialism, which is the strongest condemnation of the likelihood of emancipation from the ideology of procreation ever being achieved. Significant advancements in education under socialism lead to a favorable conclusion on the improved status of women under socialism. Women actually formed the majority of students at third level in Cuba (58%), Russia (56%) and most Eastern bloc countries (Poland 51%)[36]. In Russia this included empowerment at the very highest level, with 30% of PhD students being women[37]. The cultural expression of all citizens (let alone women), were dealt a significant blow with the onset of socialism. If anything the Soviet Realism or the Cult of personality, witnessed in the Bath, Communist and National Socialist regimes actively retarded cultural expression. It is no surprise that the overall historiography concerning women’s status under Socialism has been conflict-ridden. The backlash, which resulted in the Iranian revolution (1979) and in Post-Communist governments in Eastern Europe (1989) establish an important point for Moghadam, “the empowerment of men relative to women"[38] demonstrate that socialism offers more immediate improvement of status than capitalism. “Whilst most would accept that women fared better under socialism their liberation remains unfulfilled". Molyneux’s study of the Nicagraguan conflict reveal the extent to which real economic equality is attained but the structures of gender inequality remain.[39] The subordination of women’s goals has led many to condemn socialsit revolutions as inimical to women’s interests.

Foran’s lamentation of the “Extraordinary absence of attention to women in revolutions"[40] may have been relevant in 1973, but the evolution of Socialist historiography since (in particular Moghadam’s work for the United Nations) has done much to restore this imbalance. Goldstone must look on with embarrassment at the continual flow of monographs illuminating the key role women played in this experiment. Many of the questions raised have been largely answered. Firstly, it seems conclusive that scientific Socialism’s vision is beset with difficulties, both in implementation and structure. The fact that the ‘withering away’ looks increasingly unrealistic, correspondingly the gender structure suffers only de jure displacement. The question before Feminists is the merits of dogmatism. Virtually every ontology promising emancipation, has required compromise in its implementation (for example Marxist Leninism). Eritrea and Cuba amongst others, provide evidence that progress within socialism is possible. The congealation process, which uses class as a glue for capitalism, is essentially the same process that denies the imiscibily of gender construct. It was a logical development that a common purpose would be trialled. Whether or not a pragmatic compromise is desirable will no doubt fuel the next generation of Socialist/Feminist thinking. Indeed the very debate underway amongst 3^rd wave French feminists at present favours this very solution. Ellen Rooney heralds its potential for commonality, “The timely reanimation with materialist idioms, in what has become known as French Feminism, may well pave the way for a 3rd wave of Feminism in which Socialism may yet still have a part to play"[41], though the palatability of such to the ‘New Victorians’ is tentative. Karen Offen offers a framework by which some compromise could be made when she argues, ““Feminism is not an exercise in dogmatism nor is it a labelling exercise"[42] At present, socialism doesn’t guarantee feminist emancipation, yet moderate progress is attainable. Women can, and have, played an important role in revolution. Molyneux is entirely accurate in her warning that the spontaneity of participation (Algeria, Petrograd etc.) is dangerously overestimated and inevitably unsustainable. Historians should be cautious in overstating these occurrences, however the evolutionary manifestations certainly do reiterate a potential for common action. The current fluidity amongst historians of women’s history, only reinforces the fact that this trend is in its embryonic stages. Whether or not these various ‘isms’ can survive what may just be teething problems, and begin sprouting in unison, has yet to be definitively ascertained. Conceivably the election of Chile’s Michelle Bachelet as the first women President (January 16^th 2006), represents a genuine experiment into the merits of Feminist Socialism[43].

Bibliographical Citation.

1. Felicia Gordon, The integral Feminist: Madeline Pelletier, 1874-1939 Feminism, Socialism and Medicine, (Minnesota, 1990).

2. Barbara Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the 19th Century, (New York, 1983).

3. Mari Jo Buhle, Women and American Socialism 1870-1920, (Illinois, 1981).

4. Charles Sowerine. Women and Socialism in France since 1876, (Cambridge, 1982)

5. Robert Riegel, The Split in the Feminist Movement in 1869 in, “The Mississippi Valley Historical Review" Vol. 49, No. 3. (Dec., 1962), pp. 485-496.

6. Hilda Scott, Does Socialism liberate women?, (Boston 1974).

7. Barbara Epstein, Book Review of M.J. Buhle’s book in “Contemporary Sociology", March 1984, Volume 13 No.. 2

8. Jill Bystydzienski, Women and Socialism, A Comparative study of Women in Poland and the USSR in “Journal of women in Culture and Society" (1989) 14:3

9. Elsa Dixler, Women and Socialist Movements: A Review Essay in “Feminist Studies" (1984) Vol 10 No. 2

10. New York Times, June 2nd 1976 (Algerian Revolution)

11. Elizabeth Croll, Feminism and Socialism in China, (London, 1978).

12. Beatrice Farnsworth, Aleksandra Kollantai: Socialism, Feminism and the Bolshevik Revolution, (Stanford, 1980)

13. James Slaughter and Robert Kern (ed), Women on the left: Socialism, Feminism, and the Problems Faced by Political Women, 1880 to the Present, (Connecticut, 1981)

14. Karen Honeycutt, Socialism and Feminism in Imperial Germany in “Journal of Women in Culture and Society" 1979 Vol 5 No 1.

15. Richard Evans, Women and Social Democracy in Imperial Germany 1870-1918, (London ,1979)

16. Sheryl Lutjens, Reading between the lines: Women, The State and Rectification in Cuba in “Latin American Perspectives" Spring 1995, Vol 22 No 2 pp 100-124.

17. Molly Nolan, Commentary on Hertz, Kaplan, Grossman in ’New German Critique’, No. 14. (Spring, 1978), pp. 139-141.

Bibliographical Citation continued.

18. Helen Icka Safa, Women’s Social Movements in Latin America in “Gender and Society", September 1990 Vol. 4 No. 3 pp 354-369

19. Patricia Hilden, Working Women and Socialist Politics in France 1880-1914 (1986)

20. Lydia Sargent, ed. Women and Revolution: a Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism (New York 1981)

21. Harry G. Shaffer, Women in the Two Germanies: Comparative Study of a Socialist and a Non-Socialist ( Illinois 1981)

22. Lois M. Smith, Sex and Revolution: Women in Socialist Cuba 1996

23. Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (New York 1978)

24. Elizabeth A. Wood, The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia (London 1997)

25. Marilyn J. Boxer and Jean H. Quataert, eds Socialist Women European Socialist Feminism in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (New York 1978)

26. Karen Hunt, Equivocal Feminists: the Social Democratic Federation and the Woman Question, 1884-1911 (Cambridge, 1996)

27. Barbara Clements, Bolshevik Women ( New York 1997)

28. Helmut Gruber and Pamela Graves, Women and Socialism: Europe Between the Two World Wars (New York, 1998)

29. Barbara Holland, ed. Soviet Sisterhood: British Feminists on Women in the USSR

(1985)

30. Patricia Hilden Working Women and Socialist Politics in France 1880-1914 ( Boston 1986)

31. Mari Jo Buhle, Women and American Socialism, 1870-1920 (New York, 1981)

32. Reuters, <http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-15T214636Z_01_N14130550_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHILE-ELECTION.xml> (accessed January 2006)

33. Karen Offen, Defining Feminism, A comparative historical approach. (1988) in Journal of women in culture and society 14:1 (University of Chicago)

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Eoin Clarke's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:
No comments yet.

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: