Leonie Schmidt
Transnational feminism? Many people have probably never heard of this term. But authors such as Cinzia Arruza, Tithi Bhattacharya and Nancy Fraser, who wrote Feminism for the 99%, or Verónica Gago, who outlines a proposal for a feminist international in How to Change Everything, all engage with the theoretical concepts of transnational feminism. These ideas also permeate the women’s/fem* strike movements that have brought large numbers onto the streets in various countries on International Women’s Day in recent years.
Feminist strike wave
These strikes originated in Latin America in 2016 as part of the original Argentinian movement #NiUnaMenos (Not One More), which focused primarily on the explosion of femicides, and spread worldwide up until 2019. On 8 March 2018, people in over 177 countries took to the streets for women’s rights. In Spain alone, 6 million women went on strike in 2018 and 2019 against sexual violence, demanding equal pay and the right to self-determination over their own bodies. In Turkey, several thousand demonstrated despite severe repression by the Erdogan regime. In Pakistan, thousands also took part in the Aurat marches in several major cities. However, the pandemic and the resulting restrictions on protest opportunities appear to have led to the movement levelling off. This was followed by solidarity with the Iranian women’s movement and local strikes that took place throughout the year, rather than all on 8 March, for example in Switzerland (see previous issue), the Basque Country and Iceland.
However, even though the organisers of the international women’s strike repeatedly referred to women in other countries and their struggles, there was no international agreement and coordination that could raise this strike movement to a higher level. The immense power of the international strikes could not be harnessed to generate movements on a local level. The potential and the original appeal of the women’s strike movement were therefore not realised.
In the following pages, we will look at the role played by the ideas of transnational feminism in this movement and to what extent they helped or hindered its dynamic. To do this, we will first look at what constitutes it in the first place, how it was able to emerge and establish itself, and then move on to a critique of the theoretical approaches it has adopted. In the final section, we will outline what we think is needed instead, in order to defeat imperialism and its patriarchal structures worldwide.
What is it?
As with most political movements, transnational feminism has different characteristics and emphases depending on its context. However, the common core is the rejection of a global, internationally cohesive and coordinated feminist movement. This stems from the assumption that not all women are oppressed in the same way and for the same reasons. Consequently, they do not and cannot represent the same interests. The extent of this rejection varies from theorist to theorist. For example, some call for loose cooperation, mutual referencing of each other and an exchange of experiences, as has also been realised occasionally in the women’s/feminist strike movement.
The underlying idea is the rejection of the ‘global sisterhood’ propagated by Western feminism. Feminist ideals or values, as projected by Western feminists onto women from semi-colonies, are seen as Eurocentric, inappropriate and paternalistic. These feminists tend to impose life in the West as an ideal—although, strangely enough, women are still oppressed there too. For example, German feminist Alice Schwarzer believes that women from the semi-colonies must first and foremost fight against religious oppression, and that they would be free as soon as they are ‘allowed’ to take off their headscarves—regardless of whether they identify completely different reasons for their oppression as women, for example imperialist exploitation and dependence. This often goes hand in hand with forcing women from semi-colonies into the role of helpless victim; after all, they ‘must first be informed about their rights’.
However, some transnational feminists (e.g. postcolonial theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak) take this a stage further, even claiming that Western women are complicit with imperialism. Spivak’s aim, therefore, is not to recognise similarities in their situation as oppressed women, but to understand the connection, or ‘linkage’. This results in a rejection of generalising theories, such as the Marxist theory of imperialism or the concept of class, as these would distract attention from the specific local contexts.
Firstly, the positive side: criticising the term ‘global sisterhood’ is not only justified; it is necessary. There are indeed problems that affect all women, albeit not in the same way—the fight against violence against women, for self-determination over one’s own body, or against the unequal distribution of domestic labour. But ultimately, the concept creates the illusion of women as a whole engaging in the same fight.
This is best illustrated by the example of the ‘girl boss’ mentality. While women all over the world are employed in poor, mostly informal working conditions and the gender pay gap is a real problem, the focus is often placed on demands such as ‘quotas for women in management positions’ or the promotion of women as entrepreneurs, in line with the motto ‘representation matters’. However, once they have reached the management ranks, it is—surprise, surprise—not in their interest for wages to rise, as this could deflate profits. They will not start paying higher wages or issuing permanent contracts in favour of the ‘global sisterhood’. That would jeopardise their own position within capitalist competition. Thus, the ‘girlboss’ mentality does not help the majority of working class women, either in the imperialist centres or in the semi-colonies. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to them who is at the top when it comes to making a living.
A related problem to this bourgeois feminist idea of a global cross-class sisterhood is that these theorists have no answer to how women’s oppression can actually be overcome. They only advocate for reforms and therefore ultimately for the consolidation of their own position. Since they therefore dare not attack imperialism, they have to act all the more ‘enlightened’ and Eurocentric towards women in semi-colonies. Thus, white bourgeois feminism is based on the super-exploitation of women in semi-colonies. However, this does not stem from cultural differences, a ‘special psychology’ of women in the semi-colonies or a fundamental complicity of all Western women, regardless of their class.
The problem lies elsewhere, namely in class society and imperialism itself. These require the double exploitation of the female worker, as she generates surplus value in production, on the one hand, and, on the other, performs the unpaid reproduction of the indispensable commodity, labour power, in the working class family. Here we see the reason why there is no global sisterhood. The interests of women of different classes differ just as much as the concrete situation of women in imperialist states and in semi-colonies. But at the same time, working class women internationally not only have a common objective interest in overcoming the material basis of women’s oppression, capitalism, but also the ability to do so because of their position in the process of production and valorisation.
Origins
The foundations of transnational feminism were established in the 1970s and 1980s and represent a reaction to the lack of an internationalist programme for women’s liberation, which bourgeois feminists could not provide due to their misconception of global sisterhood, and nor could the Stalinist and reformist-dominated labour movements of the time. With the collapse of Stalinism and the change in the world situation—the beginning of globalisation—transnational feminism secured a higher profile in the 1990s. We will outline this process below, in order to create a basis for the subsequent debate with the theorists.
Just as transnational feminism is a current within the feminist spectrum, Stalinism is a current within the labour movement, one that on the surface appears as Marxism. We cannot give a full outline of this development here, but it is necessary to examine a few areas, in order to show that, while some points of criticism on the part of transnational feminists are justified, ultimately they are not valid against Marxism, but rather against its Stalinist and reformist falsifications.
For the purposes of this article, two points are particularly important: the ‘stages theory’ provided the basis for the foreign policy of the USSR—i.e. global ‘peaceful coexistence’ with imperialism. Thus revolutionary initiatives of the working class, as in Greece or Poland after the second world war, or indeed actual revolutions, as in Spain and other countries, were betrayed. Support was subordinated to the foreign policy goals of the Stalinist bureaucracies in their manoeuvres with imperialism.
In the 1980s the USSR played a particularly pernicious counter-revolutionary role in Afghanistan, in that it first supported the progressive forces only then to shamefully disengage from that camp in the course of its capitulation to imperialism. The (Stalinist) People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan launched a much-needed literacy campaign among rural women, but suddenly called it to a halt, in order to reach a reactionary compromise with the Muslim tribal chiefs.
But Stalinism’s betrayal of the interests of proletarian women was not confined to its foreign policy; it was also evident inside Russia. While there were various efforts after the October Revolution of 1917 to socialise domestic work and implement rights to bodily self-determination, by the 1930s Stalinism was pushing for the implementation of the so-called ‘new family’, ultimately nothing more than the ideal of the bourgeois family with a Soviet touch, in which the role of the mother was strongly emphasised in a reactionary way and women were pushed back into private domestic reproductive work.
The USSR’s economy of scarcity was also a particular burden for women, as they did not have the opportunity to use modern kitchen appliances, long after they had been available in imperialist countries and had greatly reduced the intensity of housework there. Food shortages were another hardship for women. State and social leadership positions in the party, trade unions, etc. remained the domain of men. There were various achievements, but not nearly enough to really advance women’s liberation. In view of these policies, it is not surprising that Marxism was not viewed as a means of liberation—whether for women as a whole or in the semi-colonial world.
The restoration of capitalism in Russia, China and Eastern Europe in the 1990s also represented a defeat for the labour movement. Many saw it as proof that Marxism could not win and had failed. As a result, they turned their backs on it and looked for other ideas and theories that appeared more ‘modern’, particularly postmodernism and post-structuralism. Judith Butler’s queer feminism also stems from this period.
Once Western imperialism no longer had any systemic antagonism in the shape of the Stalinist economies, the period of globalisation took hold. But this too held out a challenge for the USA; it had to prove itself as a hegemon in order to impose a standardised economic policy on the whole world. At the same time, it had to try to compensate for the over-accumulation of capital and the ever-decreasing profit rates in its domestic economy. To do this, they imposed their economic system on ever larger parts of the world and expanded their corporations into these regions.
Although the companies already had secondary branches in semi-colonies, they now became truly multinational. A significant part of the production of goods itself was outsourced, or offshored from the imperialist states to the semi-colonies, as cheaper labour and generally lower production costs there promised higher profits. This went hand in hand with their demand for tax breaks and various special rights vis-à-vis the governments of the semi-colonies. Wages were lowered to absolute subsistence levels; workplaces became highly dangerous, with little or no regard to health and safety protection; slavery and child labour became commonplace among subcontractors; free trade zones were established. In addition, these companies bought up state assets while foreign governments were laden with debt.
As a result, imperialist domination and exploitation were exposed, as the workers of the semi-colonial states were now directly exploited by the Western bourgeoisie; the regional bourgeoisie and their governments became increasingly dependent on US finance capital. As the situation in the semi-colonies worsened, the ideas of transnational feminism gained significance as they now explicitly related to the struggles against the exploitation of women in local plants of multinational companies, to anti-colonial struggles and battles of indigenous people against displacement and the destruction or expropriation of their land by imperialist corporations.
This came to a head during the US invasion of Afghanistan. The US attempted to disguise its geopolitical interests in this war by weoponising women’s rights in the fight against the Taliban. Western feminists took part in this propaganda, where the other culture was generally denigrated in racist terms and portrayed as barbaric in contrast to their own, ‘civilised’ culture. Something similar happened during the Iraq war: the rights of Iraqi women suddenly became an important starting point for the USA during the invasion, whereas beforehand they were barely mentioned. These events gave the theory of transnational feminism more prominence within feminist debates.
‚Deconstructivism‘
In contrast to the Marxist goal of overcoming the material basis of exploitation and oppression, the aim of transnational feminists is to criticise Western feminism on a postcolonial, anti-imperialist and intersectional level, in order to draw conclusions for local action in feminist struggles. To a certain extent, they make use of deconstructivism, as can already be seen in the word ‘transnational’: the prefix ‘trans’ is intended to indicate not only that nation-state borders should be overcome and that the struggle should be waged in ‘spheres’ outside of state structures (for example in the neighbourhood, the family, the group of friends), but also that the nation itself is to be questioned as a category. Thus, nation states are not seen as ‘real existing entities’ that fulfil an important function for capitalism and imperialism and that must of course be criticised and overcome, but rather they are seen as ‘narratives’ that reflect subjective opinions and must be fought with other ideas, rather than with actual radical action.
Another element of deconstructivism in transnational feminism is the assumption that there can be no generalising theories. This goes hand in hand with the idea that there is no objective truth that exists outside of the discourse. Every experience of oppression is therefore fundamentally different; all the connections must be taken into account in order to understand them. In this case, however, the subjective idealism of this assumption is to be disguised by the fact that those affected are not individuals, but grouped together in a regional collective. Nevertheless, this regional experience is completely different from any other and cannot be categorised.
Such a view obviously removes the fertile ground for any objective analysis and, above all, for a common practice of the oppressed for overall social change. It is idealistic on the one hand and reactionary on the other, as it prevents us from showing where common but also different phenomena of oppression come from. In contrast, in Marxism there is the possibility of overcoming pure subjectivity: the revolutionary consciousness that is borne by the historical and epistemological elements in social labour and its transformations in historical materialism, and the recognition that there is an objective, material reality that must be made visible. In the following, we will argue why this is necessary in order to achieve collective liberation by taking a closer look at various theorists.
Western feminism
The transnational feminist theorist Serene Khader (author of Faux Feminism: Why We Fall For White Feminism and How We Can Stop, Beacon 2024), describes Western feminism as missionary, because these feminists are convinced of their ideological supremacy. She refers to their following values:
- Western superiority, legitimised by the quasi-theological paradigm of the Enlightenment, and the associated values;
- Independence individualism, which means that the ideal is for women not to be dependent on their families and only chosen relationships are valuable;
- Freedom of enlightenment, which makes the questioning of traditions and religious beliefs an ideal, and
- The approach that gender roles prevent gender justice and must be abolished for the liberation from sexist and sexual oppression.
Khader holds that these values and the resulting ways of life would consolidate imperialist structures, as they would contribute to the idealisation of Western values and conceal the influence of imperialist exploitation of the semi-colonies. In order to overcome these problems, approaches are needed that enable the appreciation of relationship dependencies, tradition, religion and gender roles. It is therefore necessary to consider the specific contexts and to establish a concrete practice instead of idealistic and abstract moral concepts. Otherwise, generalisation could lead to oppression being located in local differences and not in the imperialist system. Furthermore, resistance against anti-feminist practices should only come from those affected themselves and no external intervention should take place so as not to disempower them.
Firstly, it is of course absolutely right to question Western bourgeois feminism and its claim to superiority. However, a distinction should be made here, because some of its ideas and demands are at least not a false starting point.
a) Progress and development in historical materialism
The principles of the Enlightenment, such as criticising the Church as an institution, focusing on reason and scientific knowledge as well as civil rights—even if they are bourgeois achievements—represent progress within the historical development. Although they served to legitimise bourgeois rule vis-à-vis the feudal system, they also embodied an improvement over the religiously influenced culture. Moreover, the assertion that the Enlightenment was a purely Western invention is already a return to the orientalism that the postcolonial theories to which transnational feminism refers had actually criticised. There were also comparable approaches in the Ottoman Empire, for example, and the reference to rationality and the natural sciences is not a purely ‘European phenomenon’.
It is important that the progress of an individual social formation should not be regarded as ‘eternal’, rigid and untouchable, but must be assessed in relation to its own potential and also obstacles to its development. For each of these social formations, characterised by contradictions, loses its progressive character at some point and must throw off its shackles (or fall back). This means that it is only ruptures and upheavals in the forms of production that can bring real progress, not the incessant further development of the respective form of society. This can be seen, for example, when we look at the regressive tendencies of capitalism in its current epoch: It has become a shackle on progress and the liberation of humanity.
According to this, however, it is entirely correct to regard the semi-colonial states as underdeveloped within the framework of the theory of imperialism. This is not intended as a disparagement, but describes their actual material relationship to the imperialist states. Semi-colonies are not in a position to develop in the same way as the imperialist states, their dependency means they cannot ‘catch up’. It is in fact the policy of the imperialist states to keep them underdeveloped, even if ‘development aid’ is intended to suggest otherwise. However, this must not turn into ideological supremacy to the extent that the oppressed themselves are also regarded as ‘underdeveloped’ and thus devalued in racist terms, to the extent that their own ‘superior’ perspective is imposed on them or this is used to legitimise the existing system.
At the same time, one must not come to the conclusion, as developed by Stalinists, that a bourgeois revolution is first necessary in the semi-colonies in order to have to overcome the obstacles to their development once again in the struggle for socialism. However, the bourgeois-democratic tasks must be completed, which represent an important starting point for revolutionary forces. More on this later.
First of all, of course, there is the question of the necessity of breaking with the pre-capitalist exploitative internal order: to the extent that the semi-colonies are already integrated into the imperialist world system and its boundless drive for value creation, many of these exploitative structures come under scrutiny, but it is still necessary to struggle against them. In accordance with the theory of combined and uneven development, advanced technologies have already found their way into the semi-colonies, because the productive forces do not recognise the national framework and do not have to be reinvented in every region. This also manifests itself in the fact that development is driven forward in those sectors that are most profitable. This is why, for example, the working class in the semi-colonies continues to expand, while at the same time the regressive forms and techniques of production continue to be consolidated, for example in agriculture, in order to keep reproduction costs and thus wage levels as low as possible.
What could a bourgeois revolution change now? Probably very little. Because the local bourgeoisie, due to its small size and insignificant influence, cannot break away from the international investors and fears the rebellion of its own population much more. Above all, however, these more backward forms in modern capitalism do not essentially represent a ‘disruptive remnant’ of a previous mode of production, but have been integrated into the overall capitalist system.
Nevertheless, traditions, cultural practices and religions must be criticised, in the imperialist metropoles just as much as in the semi-colonies, in order to ensure social progress, as they often contain reactionary elements that have developed over centuries. Marx criticised religion because it serves to conceal the material situation and exploitation in every class-based social formation. A critique of religion is therefore necessary in order to bring the true causes—class antagonisms—to light. In other words religion does not provide the basis of oppression, but forms part of its superstructure, which is needed to maintain and legitimise it. By inference, it is therefore in the interests of the bourgeoisie to maintain it, as this allows the imperialist and neo-colonial mechanisms of oppression to be mystified. Ultimately, Khader’s assertion that we must develop concepts that value religion and the like is precisely in the service of the imperialists. Marxists recognise that religion has a material basis in existing relations, but also that, like any other bourgeois or petty-bourgeois ideologies, it cannot be ‘abolished’ as long as the relations that produce it continue to exist.
It is therefore wrong to demand that women in the semi-colonies reject their religion as a precondition in order to advance their anti-sexist emancipation or even make it a condition for common struggle, as Western bourgeois feminists do. However, the struggle against theocratic regimes is progressive, as these usually establish dictatorships to the detriment of women, LGBT+ people, national minorities and the entire working class. Accordingly, the demands in the spirit of Trotsky’s permanent revolution for bourgeois rights such as democracy, equal personal rights for all, liberation from feudal and other pre-capitalist remnants, etc, can, however, function as a revolutionary vehicle. For it is clear that they cannot be fulfilled under capitalism for semi-colonies, but that class society must be overthrown in order to guarantee equal rights for all and genuine democracy. Equally, these struggles must not remain within a national framework, but must encompass as many areas as possible and become a world revolution.
b) Independence individualism and gender roles
This point of Khader’s criticism also requires closer examination. For her, Western feminism places the independent career woman at the centre, who has no time for family, children and household. As a result, she has to fulfil her reproductive labour responsibilities by hiring other women to do it. It can therefore be said that even under capitalism, reproductive labour is already socialised to a certain extent, albeit under the auspices of the ruling class. What becomes particularly clear here is that we are not talking about ‘Western’ feminism per se, but bourgeois feminism. Because even in semi-colonial countries, this form of outsourcing is possible for women from the ruling class and parts of the middle class. So the need for independence cannot really be resolved satisfactorily for everyone under capitalism.
While it is true that capitalism has triggered an alienation from the community that previously existed to a certain extent under feudalism, for example, this cannot be overcome in the current structures because they are based on the current mode of production. Alleged concepts of pre-capitalist community and dependency do not promote women’s liberation. Economic dependencies often ensure that women cannot escape from their violent husbands, as they earn too little in their jobs to live truly independently due to the obligations of reproductive labour imposed on them by gender roles.
Of course, this also affects women who are not allowed to work at all (because they are forbidden to do so either by their husbands or by the state). But it is also the case that single mothers, for example, who do not receive any social support, do not necessarily have better living conditions. In order to raise their children, they are often dependent on flexible jobs with shift work so that they can juggle everything. And flexible jobs are usually in the low-wage sector. However, their situation is also due to the fact that reproductive labour has been shifted to the private sphere instead of ensuring the communal care and upbringing of children and the elderly. Dependence on one’s own relatives also goes hand in hand with patriarchal oppression, for example when it comes to concepts of family honour or forced marriage.
Of course, the aim should not be to lead a lonely, secluded life in order to escape any dependency and be successful on your own or at least just be able to keep your head above water.
The central point, however, is that the key to abolishing the structures that push women into dependency—such as the ideal of the bourgeois family, the associated gender roles and reproductive labour that is pushed into the private sphere—is not the illusion of spiritual communities and traditional dependencies that Khader envisages. For these only represent the ideological expression (the superstructure) of women’s oppression. Even a mere critique of gender roles cannot bring about liberation. Only the overcoming of capitalism and the collectivisation of production and reproduction can overcome the current alienation and lead to a new community that is characterised by many different interpersonal relationships. The assumption that gender relations are fundamentally different in semi-colonies and also have a different origin than in imperialist states lacks any logic. The ideological superstructure and the degree of social oppression may differ, but more progressive legislation can also be revoked in imperialist states, as can be seen from abortion rights in the USA or the revocation of the rights of queer parents in Italy in recent years. Equality on paper does not mean that it is really consistently implemented and pursued, as can be seen from the number of femicides and sexualised violence in imperialist states.
There may be structures in semi-colonies where community and housework are lived and performed differently than the ideal of the bourgeois nuclear family is supposed to suggest. However, this does not usually go beyond the framework of a family and describes the co-operation of women from different generations within it, as was also common in feudal and other pre-capitalist societies. In some cases, these circumstances are deliberately encouraged or at least left untouched by the imperialists. There may also be indigenous peoples whose social structure is even more similar to that of ‘primitive communism’, but they are a rarity. This means that domestic labour in the semi-colonies remains private. Furthermore, the class of wage labourers is now so extensive that the necessity of reproduction in the private sphere also exists and is carried out there. The basis of women’s oppression therefore remains the same: class society.
c) Emergence of consciousness
The assumption that there should be no intervention from ‘outside’ in the fight against sexism also goes back to the aforementioned idea that there can be no objective reality independent of consciousness and that only the subjective perceptions of those affected can provide them with insights into their individual situation. This means that only the women in the respective semi-colony have the opportunity to recognise why they are oppressed, as they are the ones affected.
First of all, nobody becomes conscious just because they are oppressed. Otherwise capitalism would no longer exist. Of course, being affected can be a stimulus to delve deeper into the underlying factors and develop ideas against your oppression. But you can also be completely wrong in your analysis. For consciousness is a collective question, which has its basis and its measure of truth in the economic structures and in the common struggle against them, but which must also be linked to theoretical insights that must be brought into the class struggle from outside the purely economic sphere. This also applies to a proletarian women’s movement.
Of course, this is not to say that Western feminists determine everything, but that in addition to common struggles, a common international analysis of the world is also needed, whereby internationalism must form the foundation to ensure that the objective situation is also grasped and is not characterised by nationalist ideas or imperialist chauvinism. Building on this, there can then be discussions about a common direction.
It is also necessary to learn lessons from the successes and failures of the labour and women’s movements of the past. After all, if every oppressed person is to make the same mistake again unchallenged, just to avoid being patronised, things are likely to look rather bleak for our classless and liberated future. But of course this must not be a one-way street. Western feminism, including its neoliberal and individualising tendencies, must also be sharply criticised so that a meaningful class struggle unity against women’s oppression can be formed, one that can really take up the cause of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism.
Critique of Marxism
However, a look at the work of Caren Kaplan and Inderpal Grewal shows that such an approach is not in the spirit of transnational feminism. In their text Transnational Feminist Cultural Studies: Beyond the Marxism/Poststructuralism/Feminism Divides (1994), they mainly question the existence of a homogeneous world proletariat and want to prove that Marxist theory is outdated. For them, the application of a class concept would lead to the commonisation of men and women, leaving social oppression and imperialist exploitation out of account.
This is based on the assumption that capital today no longer produces conformity, i.e. a generalised revolutionary subject, but addresses people in their underlying cultural context. Communities rather than classes produce consciousness, especially through the attempt to disguise exploitation with diversity. With reference to Spivak, they argue that the imperialist value chain not only produces wealth for the imperialist states, but also the opportunity for cultural self-representation by the semi-colonies. Spivak assumes that Marx’s theory of value creation cannot sufficiently explain how social oppression arises. She concludes that cultural dominance and exploitation go hand in hand and shape each other. Based on this, Kaplan and Grewal reject any generalising theories and categories. They propose solidarity and coalitions, but no concrete common struggle or even common organisation.
a) On the question of the world proletariat
First of all, Marxism does not assume that there is a homogeneous world proletariat. The Marxist concept of class is not a rigid category that measures the working class by its monthly income, but argues that the working class exists in relation to the capitalist class and the means of production. The world market creates international value chains. In the course of globalisation, millions have been integrated into these chains, especially in Asia, but also in other parts of the world—as workers, landless or unemployed people without access to the means of production.
The movement of capital determines the composition of the working class and the concrete form of exploitation. In periods of crisis, the objective conditions faced by the working class in imperialist states and in the semi-colonies diverge massively. The workers in the imperialist states are undoubtedly privileged compared to those in the semi-colonial states, but they still remain the exploited class.
Derived from these points, the very existence of an international working class must speak against this assumption. However, as we have stated, this class is not homogeneous and there are obstacles that prevent it from acting as a class in its own right on an international level.
In this context, the layer of the working class that we call the labour aristocracy should be emphasised. It represents a privileged section in the imperialist core centres—financed from the extra profits, i.e. the over-exploitation of the workers of the semi-colonial world. It has emerged partly through fighting power, partly because it is located at such a significant point in the value creation process that these strata were socially pacified from part of the spoils of imperialist over-exploitation. This stratum is significant because it forms the social support of the bureaucracy in the trade union, which underpins the policy of social partnership, or class collaboration. The bureaucracy does not produce the labour aristocracy, but it can influence the constitution, the state of consciousness of the strata.
However, the trade union bureaucracy is not merely an extension, an apparatus that has become a form of the wrong, insufficiently developed trade union consciousness. It has historically developed into a caste that acts in the interests of the capitalists inside the organisations of the working class—as a political police force, an extension of the state apparatus. As a bureaucratic layer, it develops a material interest in perpetuating its role as a mediator between wage labour and capital—and thus also in defending bourgeois property relations. This is the core of social partnership. The labour bureaucracy thus binds the class to the wage form, itself a veiled expression of the class antagonism.
In this sense, it is a strategic obstacle for revolutionaries who set themselves the task of bringing the everyday resistance of (parts of) the working class into implacable opposition to class society. Not only because the programme of social partnership prevents struggles in imperialist centres from being waged successfully, but also because the ideas of ‘location logic’ and ‘competitiveness’ constitute a real obstacle to the development of an internationalist standpoint and divide the class. That is why it is also crucial to oppose these divisions with a political programme instead of taking the differences between workers in imperialist countries and semi-colonies for granted. This ultimately naturalises the existing division.
At the same time, the privileges of the labour aristocracy are not permanent. While this stratum is becoming smaller and smaller in many imperialist countries, there is a parallel progressive fragmentation of the class as a whole. In other words, the expansion of the low-wage sector is increasing the casualisation (precarity) and flexibilisation of working conditions and widening the gap between the labour aristocracy and the workers in the low-wage sectors in the imperialist core centres. Neither is the double exploitation in production and the reproduction of the worker swept under the carpet in a Marxist analysis.
Even if it may seem at first glance that parts of the working class benefit from the over-exploitation of their colleagues in the semi-colonies, it is not in their objective interest when it comes to overcoming capitalism. Ultimately, this can only be successful on an international level or is doomed to failure. To ensure this, demands must be made that oppose the effects of imperialism—for example, imperialist interventions, sanctions, the outsourcing of environmentally harmful production or exploitation. This is possible because the decisive commonality lies in the exploitation of the commodity of labour power. Accordingly, this also unites the objective interest in overcoming this exploitation and makes it possible to wage common struggles. However, the postcolonial tradition of transnational feminism emphasises the difference between countries rather than between classes.
b) Cultural dominance and value creation
Nor is it true that cultural supremacy is produced by the value chains, as Spivak claims. This is a completely false understanding of the creation of surplus value and capital. Cultural supremacy serves imperialism as a justification and disguise for exploitation; it forms part of the social superstructure. This deepens divisions within the class, justifies wage dumping and differences and educates the working class in the imperialist countries in the spirit of ‘cultural’ or ‘racial’ superiority.
Ultimately, it is not at all in the objective interests of the Western proletariat, but this reactionary ideology is an extremely important weapon in the hands of the ruling class to secure its global domination. This is reinforced by the privileges enjoyed by the wage earners—here above all the labour aristocracy—of the imperialist nations in relation to those of the semi-colonies. But in the longer term and from the historical interest of the wage earners, these concepts of cultural domination not only offer no perspective for overcoming exploitation, but rather represent a shackle for the working class in the imperialist countries as well, binding them to their exploiters.
Spivak, Kaplan and Grewal rightly criticise these assumptions of cultural domination and the struggle against this chauvinism, nationalism and racism must be resolutely waged in the working class and its organisations—both in the here and now and certainly also after a successful revolution because, even then, backward ideas and behaviours that have been firmly anchored for decades or even centuries will not disappear without a conscious struggle against them. Although the theory criticises reactionary consciousness in the working class of imperialist countries, it ultimately capitulates in the fight against it. Its idealisation of backward forms of consciousness, e.g. religious ideas in the working class of semi-colonial countries, is directly reactionary. These are ultimately nothing other than means by which the ruling class of the semi-colonies politically and ideologically binds ‘their’ workers (and poor peasants) to the capitalist order. This shows the class character of these theories (like postcolonial theory). Ostensibly, they stand up for the ‘backward’ masses of the semi-colonies against ‘Eurocentric’ or ‘universalist’ criticism. In reality, their bourgeois paternalism ideologically cements the subordination and exploitation of wage earners in the semi-colonial world.
The Feminist International
Finally, let’s take a closer look at Verónica Gago as a contemporary representative of transnational feminism. She can be seen as a theorist of the women’s/feminist strike movement. It should be emphasised that the networking and simultaneity of the actions on 8 March represent progress. However, it was the theoretical and strategic shortcomings that prevented the movement from continuing in the same ground-breaking way as it began.
In the tradition of transnational feminism, Gago naturally rejects any homogenisation of the movement through a common programme. While it is true that such a programme would have to address the different situations of imperialist states and semi-colonies, there can nevertheless inevitably be a common struggle and a common goal. After all, the opponents, the imperialist capitals, are also the same enemies who can only be defeated en masse. Instead, the feminist international Gago proposes can be practised everywhere, be it in bed, at work or on the street.
The assumption that a strike outside of wage labour can be just as effective, no matter how small, as, for example, giving up smiling, emerges from Gago’s new concept of class, which seeks to unite workers, peasants and the lower petty bourgeoisie, as if they really had a common objective class interest in some form. Of course, Marxists should also try to draw these classes and strata to the side of the working class, but nevertheless they often form independent intermediate classes, because they own some means of production but have to exploit themselves in order to survive, and therefore run the risk of being crushed between the main class antagonism.
Gago’s fundamental generalisation is not unproblematic and in some respects prevents the formulation of a concrete programme. For the revolutionary subject continues to be the working class, since only it has the objective class interest in overthrowing capitalism in order to free itself from exploitation and oppression, and in particular because its position in the production process gives it the opportunity to develop this social power as a collective.
The rejection of strategy, tactics and programme and the reliance on spontaneous uprisings, as Gago describes it, refers to the assumption that the consciousness of the feminist movement can arise spontaneously. In a way, it represents a transfer of economism to women’s and LGBT+ struggles. But history has proven often enough, for example during the Arab Spring, that spontaneous consciousness does not simply arise and cannot replace a programme if the uprising or movement wants to be successful. A loose connection without discussions and debates about concrete demands, tactics and strategies does not lead to the lasting impact of the movement.
Elements of a programme
What is needed is an international organisation that pursues joint and coordinated action as a basic principle. This cannot focus on the differences between the common situation, as Spivak and co. call for. These must be recognised and given space, but in view of the global crises, the rollback against women (and LGBT+ people) and the rise of the right, it is absolutely necessary to agree on common demands for a coordinated global struggle as a first step. To this end, we propose the following key points.
1. Full legal equality and inclusion in the production process
Even though it has been presented as a positive development that women are now allowed to vote almost everywhere in the world, they do not have the same rights in many places. In practice, this means, for example, more difficult divorce options or no political participation. A ban on going to work or only being able to do so from home means complete economic dependence on a partner or family. Where these women are not organised, we must call on the trade unions to win them over to our ranks. This is an important step that makes it clear that they too are part of the working class.
2. Equal work, equal pay
While reactionaries try to explain the pay gap by saying that women simply work in lower-paid jobs because they supposedly ‘can’t work as hard’ as men, it is clear to us that the difference in pay is a result of the gender-specific division of labour that capitalism reproduces. In most countries, women’s wages still appear to be ‘additional earnings’ to the ‘main family wage’ of men.
3. Bodily self-determination
Whether from religious regulations, racist agitation or anti-abortion activists, women all over the world are confronted with attempts to control their bodies. That’s why we are in favour of women being able to decide for themselves what they can wear and whether they want to get pregnant or stay pregnant.
4. Right to physical integrity
Whether it is sexual assault, rape or femicide: violence against women is omnipresent. It should be emphasised that this is an international problem and is not limited to certain regions or religions, as some reactionaries claim. Rather, it is a question of the social basis and political conditions where and to what extent religious ideas become the ideology of reactionary movements and gain influence.
It is essential to raise the demand for self-defence committees that are linked to the labour movement and the oppressed. The advantage of such structures is that women should not remain passive victims, but should be given the opportunity to actively defend themselves against oppression. In addition, the demand for self-defence committees is important for Marxists because we cannot rely on the police or military as reliable allies. Instead, they are often on the side of the perpetrators or are perpetrators themselves. In addition, self-defence structures create a counterweight to their monopoly on violence and that of the bourgeois state in general.
5. Socialisation of domestic labour
Reproductive labour in the household should be socialised through provision of communal laundries, canteens and cleaning services. This is an essential demand to end the double burden on women and ultimately one of the steps that will end the gendered division of labour—and with it the stereotypes.
The movement we need
This women’s movement must be multi-ethnic and international, as patriarchal structures and capitalism represent a global system and the prevailing petty-bourgeois feminisms are often only concerned with ‘the Western, white cis woman’, as has been rightly criticised by transnational feminism. It is important that the concerns of women from semi-colonial countries or racially oppressed women in imperialist states are placed at the centre, because they suffer from particularly severe forms of exploitation and, from a global perspective, make up the majority of proletarian women.
Furthermore, it must not just be a loose alliance, as its mobilisation potential is limited in terms of both time and impact if it only involves uncoordinated local or national actions. The women’s movement is then ultimately faced with two tasks.
Firstly, to coordinate as a global, organised movement around common goals, binding actions and campaigns. To this end, common points of reference, such as the above demands, must be found, but also common struggles of different currents must be waged, for example with the organisation and strikes in the care sector, the environmental movement or the movement against racism. Similarly, a joint struggle between carers and women affected by the abortion protests could become really powerful.
These demands must be carried into the spheres of our everyday lives, such as school, university and work. Here we must work to ensure that this is not just talked about, but that it is accompanied by concrete achievements. Action and strike committees must be set up for this. With these everyday demands, such as the right to bodily self-determination, it is possible for revolutionary women to lead a common struggle with reformists or petty bourgeois feminists. However, the fight must not remain confined to these everyday demands, but be connected in a comprehensive programme of action and ultimately in a revolutionary transitional programme in order to show the way to a liberated society. Revolutionary women must fight for this, just as they must also agitate for solidarity strikes of the entire working class.
The decisive factor is therefore which class puts its stamp on such a movement. The above-mentioned demands can form the basis for building an international, proletarian women’s movement in which revolutionaries fight for political hegemony and communist leadership.
Closely linked to this is a second task, namely to campaign for an International and demonstrate the necessity of this form of organisation. This is determined by the necessity of dismantling of the imperialist world system. Those who have no plan for this and assume that it will all work spontaneously anyway in reality accept that people will turn away demoralised after the failure of the movement, which is not uncommon.
The Stalinist idea of ‘socialism in one country’ is even more illusory in the 21st Century than it was in the 20th. Stalinism has already betrayed millions of workers by implementing policies derived from this concept, ensuring in the process that Marxism is seen as a failure. At the same time, however, internationalised production chains and enormous advances in the speed of exchange and communication have made the conditions for international solidarity much easier. We can only provide adequate answers to questions of how to win the struggles (and above all put them into practice) if we organise the most progressive workers, women and young people in all parts of the world and win them over to the perspective of anti-capitalist struggle.
Moreover, a movement needs not only common demands, but also leadership and a clear political, class orientation in order to be successful. We can see where loose, albeit dynamic movements lead in various struggles: be it the Arab Spring, Fridays for Future/Extinction Rebellion or the women’s strike movement. The dominance of bourgeois, petty bourgeois or reformist forces has led these movements themselves into crisis or even failure.
Revolutionary women are therefore not ‘only’ faced with the task of struggling for a class-political orientation in the women’s strikes and other forums and struggles. We must also call on those forces that recognise the need for an international proletarian women’s movement to organise conferences in order to arrive at common demands and internationally coordinated actions. To this end, we must also address reformist organisations, as well as feminist groups and campaigns, in order to draw their base into action, lead joint struggles and at the same time practically expose the mistakes of the reformist leadership. In this way, the current weakness of the women’s strike movement can be overcome.
Women’s oppression itself is inextricably linked to the capitalist system and can therefore only be truly eliminated by overthrowing it. Therefore, the struggle for a proletarian women’s movement is inextricably linked to the struggle for a revolutionary Fifth International.