Can Marxism And Feminism Ever Join Forces? Mexico’s Next President May Find Out

–Op-Ed–

MADRID — Two and a half years ago I translated and edited The Communist Manifesto, and I decided to include — along with classic texts that commented on it — texts by current authors that addressed the validity, or not, of Marx and Engels’ influential pamphlet.

One of the topics I considered essential to review was feminism’s relationship with that text. In 1848, there were very few people who dealt openly — that is, not through fiction — with the specific situation of women in capitalist society. When they did, there was hardly any repercussion. In some cases, they were not intended for publication, such as Harriet Taylor Mill’s text about marriage in 1833 for her then lover, John Stuart Mill. Her essay “Enfranchisement of Women” did not appear until 1851.

It seemed clear to me that just as we could not expect an environmental vision from Marx and Engels, neither could we demand proof of feminism from their work. It was not amiss, however, to see what contemporary feminism would have to say about the limitations of the Manifesto in that regard.

I cannot summarize here the essay by Professor Wendy Lynne Lee that accomplished that task. I will only say that it mentioned an aspect that continued to produce heated confrontations within Marxism in the 19th and 20th centuries and that still provokes discussions among leftists.

The handicap of Marxist theory when analyzing the situation of women was to consider that patriarchy was so closely linked to capitalism that, once the proletarian revolution was achieved and private ownership of the means of production was eliminated, women would automatically achieve equality.

Marxism vs. feminism

For Lee, as for so many Marxist feminists, focusing on class issues is not enough; it is imperative to independently address the situation of women as wage earners and domestic workers, and their role within and outside the family.

‘The Poor First’ recalls the idea that the class struggle comes first — and women’s issues are less urgent.

German activist Clara Zetkin, Russian revolutionary Aleksandra Kolontái, and many other feminist Marxists of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century had already fought to explicitly address the specific oppressions to which women were subjected and not to leave the resolution of their problems to a hypothetical collapse of capitalism.

The resistance they encountered in their own parties made it clear that many of their fellow members did not seem to feel uncomfortable within the framework of patriarchy. That discussion still resonates between those who defend the urgency of protests and identity politics and those who claim that the division they provoke in the class struggle is counterproductive and weakens the left.

Mexico’s mixed record

I am reminded of these issues when reading news articles about the upcoming presidential elections in Mexico, in which it seems likely that, for the first time, there will be a presidenta, a woman president, rather than a presidente, a man president, to be elected.

Mexican women may feel that leftist men see feminist demands as an obstacle to their project.

I read some of the statements by current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and understand that many Mexican women may feel, like Kolontái or Zetkin, that quite a few leftist men see feminist demands as an obstacle to their project. It is true that AMLO’s government is the most equalitarian in the history of Mexico, and that he has promoted the constitutional anchoring of the decriminalization of abortion or the approval of a law on vicarious violence.

But there are so many elements that give the impression that AMLO would rather leave feminism behind. There are the many contorted ways in which the president has managed not to declare himself a feminist (“I am not against feminism”), his accusations that the feminist movement is conservative or goes against the government, or his support of a governor from his party who has been accused of sexual assault.

There are also phrases such as this one: “The Fourth Transformation is feminist, and it has already been achieved […] now what we have to achieve as an objective is to consolidate the transformation of the country.” His slogan “Primero los pobres” (The Poor First) recalls the idea that the class struggle comes first — and women’s issues are less urgent, however serious they may be.

Class struggle and feminism 

Will things change with a president such as Claudia Sheinbaum — a leftist and openly feminist woman? Just because she is one, does not mean her policies will be, some activist say, noting that so far the candidate has gone out of her way to support López Obrador at all times.

It seems promising that one of the points of her program is to strengthen the fight against gender violence and reduce the murders of women. In Mexico, 10 women are murdered every day, almost 30,000 are missing and the number of rapes is uncountable. And impunity is terrifying.

What is needed to achieve those dreams is feminism and class struggle at the same time.

That is why leftist feminist activists believe that gender parity and concepts such as breaking the glass ceiling are all well and good. But they are only useful for those women who hit that ceiling: educated women, business women, high officials. Those women who do not even dream of that ceiling face problems that are much more serious; they dream of not being abused, not being raped, not being killed or not going missing.

What is needed to achieve those dreams is feminism and class struggle at the same time. It is to put the poor first — they are the main victims of patriarchy, social violence and capitalism. Those ills affect women of all classes, but not uniformly.

Marx, Engels, Zetkin, Kolontái and Taylor Mill — if they raised their heads, they would surely agree.