In the section of Marx’s Selected Writings read for this class period, Marx refers to men as being defined by labor and women as being defined by their sexual and reproductive abilities. While women are mentioned only briefly in the text, further analysis of their fate in capitalist and communist systems helps clarify Marx’s views on women.
The parallels between laborers and prostitutes is made most clear in Marx’s footnote where he writes “Prostitution is only a particular expression of the general prostitution of the laborer,” (72). The two categories are almost identical, as the prostitute must give up the intimacy of her body and her time and physical effort, losing a part of herself. Like the laborer Marx spoke of in the previous reading, “[Her] work, therefore, is not voluntary, but coerced, forced labor. It is not the satisfaction of a need but only a means to satisfy other needs” (62). In the capitalist system, the workers must sell part of themselves in the form of labor or prostitution, receiving back not the product of their labor but rather wages.
Communism is presented as a possible solution to the plight of laborers. While men still must labor in order to create products, and therefore put part of themselves into an alien source, they gain back this energy as it goes to “the community as universal capitalist” (70) and therefore is returned to the laborer who created. However, communism has a very different affect on the welfare of women. Marriage is viewed by Marx as “a form of exclusive private property” (69), and just as products of labor are to be shared by the community, so are the women who previously were the “private property” (69) of their husbands. Just as “The condition of the laborer is not overcome but extended to all men” (69) the condition of the prostitute is extended to “women [who] go from marriage into universal prostitution” (69). Thus, communism initially appears to be a terrible society for women, as they are all force into prostitution.
However, Marx recognizes that universal prostitution is not the most popular position to take and attempts to distance himself from it by distinguishing between “crude communism” (70) and a more developed communism. Unfortunately, women are not directly addressed in his discussions of this more developed communism, but because “From [the] relationship [between man and woman] one can thus judge the entire level of mankind’s development” (70) it can be assumed that the prostitution previously referred to is not as dire as it initially sounds.
Later in the text Marx writes about society, religion, and the senses within the context of communism, but uses the term “man” (71-79) when referring to individuals within communist society. The issue of women becoming prostitutes is not readdressed. Even when speaking of the creation and reproduction of humankind, Marx ignores the issue, referring to “the creation of man through human labor and the development of nature for man, [through which] he has evident and incontrovertible proof of his self-creation” (78). Marx’s failure to directly address the issue of women under communism undermined his later arguments, as the counter-argument against communism was never fully addressed. Although he differentiates between crude communism and the communism he endorses, women are only fully addressed in description of the negative system.
Discussion questions:
How could Marx’s discourse concerning men as laborers be applied to women as prostitutes?
Does Marx view women primarily as human or property, and how does this affect his writings on their role in communism?
Lachlan, I think that you chose to focus on an interesting point in the text: women and their relation to being a laborer/ how they would take part in a communist society. Unfortunately, Marx does not necessarily elaborate upon in this topic in depth. The one thing that I just wanted point out is that it is interesting to me that Marx only refers to women as prostituting themselves or as being universal property. In the same sense though, wouldn't men also be universal property and prostituting themselves as well?
ReplyDeleteI think that Marlee brought up a really good point, and it's one I was also thinking about while reading. Marx is very careful to distinguish which gender, if a specific one, he is talking about. In the previous reading, he always refers to man, while in this reading he refers to women and also to human. He makes some generalizations about humans which I think might be able to help answer Marlee's question. Marx asserts that labor is "the condition in which everyone is put" and that capital is the "universality and power of the community" (70). In this passage, he clearly makes no distinction between man and woman and how society distinguishes them. I think that Marx believes that men's labor provides money for necessities (as he talks about in the previous reading) while women's labor does not provide those things, but rather provides a distraction for man.
ReplyDeleteLachlan's discussion of women's societal roles as delineated by Marx makes me realize that Marx contradicts himself in his treatment of identity. Throughout his examination of the evils of capitalism, Marx emphasizes its tendency to strip workers of their individuality. Through wage-labor, workers become commodities rather than unique humans.
ReplyDeleteAs Lachlan points out, Marx compares wage-labor to marriage, claiming that marriage turns women into sexual slaves owned by male "proprietors." As a solution, he suggests that women be "freed" into a pool of prostitutes so that they won't be managed by one "owner" in particular.
What Marx fails to realize is that this so-called solution would actually make women more of a commodity than ever, generalizing them into one big clump of sexual objects to be selected, used, and passed around like apples at a grocery store. He does not consider that people actually derive part of their identity from their relationships with other people. Plenty of spouses shape each other and feel validated in their role as significant other. Moreover, the complexity of human relations separates people from animals; affection and devotion, not just primal carnality, exist in marriage. By suggesting the abolition of marriage, Marx threatens to demolish a huge source of individuality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarx's treatment of women is interesting in that he singles them out for a particular analogy when, at the time that this was written, a large part of the workforce or laborers indeed consisted of women. Marx clearly states that the laborer's voluntary and practical enslavement to the community is bad by comparing it to the sharing of women, thus provoking a visceral negative reaction. Women who become prostitutes trade their bodies, minds, and lives in exchange for wages. By selling their bodies, they put a price on them, therefore objectifying them and by extension lessening the value of humanity. I would argue that, although no real evidence is given as to Marx's view of women, it is implied that the target audience for which this paper is being written is largely male. As such, it seems less that Marx viewed women as property so much as either less important or less likely to revolt. To answer's Lachlan's discussion question, I would say Marx most likely simply did not consider them as important and as such did not address their plight in the more perfected version of communism. The reason why they were mentioned originally was to elicit a reaction from his readers.
ReplyDeleteI think that Gabe's comment more accurately describes what Marx is trying to say through his example of how the idea of sharing women is used to make labor through communal capitalism look bad. While sharing of women is not appealing to anyone, the sharing of labor is men's equivalent of prostitution. Just as prostitution dehumanized women, wage labor dehumanizes men.
ReplyDelete