Re: To Bon Moun re M's comments: in marxism-digest

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now I do take exception to this bit, a bit.
Marx and Engels did write in the Manifesto:
"The less skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in
other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the
labour of men superseded by that of women.  Differences of age and sex
have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class.
All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according
to their age and sex."
They were not totally ignorant of the plight of women in their society.
A favourite of mine is: "Abolition of the family!  Even the most radical
flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists."  As I interpret
this today, and the following passage on this topic, M&E were advocating
the liberation of women from the thrall of being the chattel of the man
in a marriage, and as such, unpaid labor.  I don't think anyone here
needs a history lesson on the legal status of women in the
English-speaking world in the mid-19th century.

Lise Vogel's "Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary
Theory" is an excellent introduction to the historic problem between
socialism and feminism that first appeared, in my opinion, so blatantly
in Victoria Woodhull's expulsion from the First International.  However,
Marx may have learned from this experience (although I tend to agree
with him in the matter), for after the First International fell apart,
he, as Vogel describes, worked with the emerging working class parties
that were to later form the Second International: "Thus delegates from
the new French Workers' party consulted them [M&E] on the party's
program for the 1880's elections.  Discussed and drawn up in London, the
program included an introduction by Marx in which, as he later put it,
'the communist goal is defined in a few words.'  The opening sentence of
the introduction specifically asserts that 'the emancipation of the
producing class involves all human beings without distinction of sex or
race' (Vogel, 71-72)."

I shy from forcing a presentist perspective on those in social milieux
of a century and a half past, for example, I will not rush to defend the
personal idiosyncracies of a Sainted Karl, and/nor Fred, but let's give
credit where credit is due on a list so named after the former.  Also,
there is a diff. between crit'ing Karl the person on the one hand, and
crit'ing marxism and marxists (of which Karl said he was not one: "Je ne
suis pas une marxist!"), in the past or now.  The development of
marxism, *in my view* I hasten to add, proceeds apace, and cleaves still
to its name, based on certain understandings of class analysis,
historical materialism, dialectics, and the power and necessity! of the
working class to make a revolution that will benefit humanity.

As for Marx and the environment, marxist John Bellamy Foster has
recently written about just that subject.
I'd blather on about this but I must address a project that is waiting,
looming, and --yes!-- oppressing me!
hafta dash...


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.