Capital & Class

The fourth international Marxist feminist conference was the most international and best attended with around 700 participants, including Silvia Federici, Nancy Fraser, Tithi Bhattacharya, Lorena Cabnal, Ochy Curiel, Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, Elsa Dorlin, Jules Falquet, and Frigga Haug. The main themes of the panels established continuity with the previous conferences, from debates on intersectionality which overlap in various fields with practical and theoretical issues such as value, the state, law, care, production, and social reproduction to those that were closely linked to the thinking of new organizations and repertoires of struggle. This Special Issue is based on the plenary titled: the Thirteen Theses of Marxist Feminism. Frigga Haug, the author of The Thirteen Theses, considers all of them in her opening interview. The most widely debated theses by the Special Issue contributors are Theses I, II, and III on relations of production and the production of the means of life followed by theses from V to VIII which deal with intersectionality and how to study race, class and gender, the role of labor movement in the process of emancipation, and the issue of primary and secondary contradictions which is closely related to the development of an effective political emancipatory subject. The Special Issue closes with an interview with the philosopher Nancy Fraser on the three faces of labor.

This interview with Frigga Haug explores the thirteen thesis which were developed collectively during three different international conferences and Frigga Haug authored the 13 theses. The goal was to make the feminist movement sustainable with a Marxist spirit and to bring Marxism to life. The theses are a work in progress, a framework for the foundation of a Marxist-feminist international, they are sustainable enough for them to stand the test through the specific changed conditions of our historically determined spaces of movement, and flexible enough that they would not harden into chains.

The article gives a materialist interpretation of the first, second and third Marxist-feminist Theses through a critical analysis of the Unitary Theory of Social Reproduction. It argues that Social Reproduction Theory resorts to idealism and biologism when explaining male domination. A meta-critical incision will be carried out by studying the use Social Reproduction Theory makes of categories such as ‘production’, ‘reproduction’, ‘exploitation’ and ‘oppression’, in that these categories are addressed as historical while the categories of ‘women’ and ‘men’ are de-historicized and naturalized. According to Unitary Theories, ‘women’ are not material, historical products of patriarchy but biological beings (biologism) that have been culturally devalued (idealism). This leads to an essentialist ontology where ‘women’ and ‘men’ precede the relations of production that create them. This idea obstructs the formation of a materialist philosophy of praxis.

This article discusses the Marxist-Feminist Theses III and VIII. It is based on the ‘French-speaking materialist feminist’ theoretical perspective that has been developed at the end of the 1970s by Colette Guillaumin (with the concept of ‘sexage’), Monique Wittig (with the concept of ‘straight mind’), Nicole-Claude Mathieu, Christine Delphy and other members of the Nouvelles Questions Féministes journal’s board. The article first presents this theorization, which is too unknown to many English-speaking theorists. It then shows how ‘French-speaking materialist feminist’ theoretical perspective fully demonstrated that ‘sex’ was a structural social relation as much as class is (Gender relations are relations of production). The article also analyses how this theoretical perspective enables us to pay a deep attention to the ‘race question’. Therefore, it appears as the missing link that can help bridging at least two important theoretical and political gaps: first, between Marxist feminism and lesbian theory, and, second, between Black feminism and Marxist feminism.

The article enhances Frigga Haug’s theses on Marxism-feminism by discussing a silence in the theses regarding the internal colonialism of the feminist movement that continue creating racialised hierarchies among White feminist and indigenous people and women of colour and their struggles. The author contends that Marxism-Feminism is failing to find new ways to understand diversity due to the influence of traditional Eurocentric Marxism. To tackle the problem, Marxism-feminism requires a decolonising Marxism that draws on ‘late Marx’ and recent Marxist and feminist theoretical developments aiming to criticise and de-Westernise and de-Eurocentralise Marxism. The author explores four elements for a ‘decolonising’ Marxism (value theory, subsumption and social formation, linear development of radical change and temporality of struggles) and discusses its implications on Marxism-feminism towards a possible thesis 14 on Marxism-feminism.

Colonialism emerged as a tumultuous collision between Western and precolonial power structures, resulting in an unexpected convergence of colonial and indigenous patriarchal ideologies. This had paradoxical consequences, such as the mutual reinforcement of these ideologies. In colonized societies, gender, sexuality, race, class, and religious distinctions became intricately intertwined, giving rise to complex systems of domination. As a result, postcolonial feminists caution against overly simplistic analyses that solely concentrate on single dimensions like race or class, or gender in isolation, without recognizing their interconnected and mutually co-constituting nature. Postcolonial feminism emphasizes the need to avoid universalizing tendencies that overlook the unique particulars of different contexts.

This article offers an insight into the challenges faced by social movements when attempting to politicize the crisis of reproduction which took place during the COVID-19 syndemic in the city of Barcelona. The analysis provided here expands on the analysis of social reproduction theory and, more broadly, on Marxist feminist approaches. In fact, one of the factors accounting for the absence of politicization during the syndemic is the type of responses given to the emergency by the authoritarian neoliberal state, which were beyond those envisaged by the 10th thesis theorized by Marxism-Feminism and social reproduction theory. Thus, in this article, we argue that this situation is an opportunity to establish a dialogue between critical state theory and Marxism-Feminism to understand how the agency of the state may condition the social reproduction of life and block the emancipatory possibilities of care and the social struggles regarding the crisis of care, complementing thus the10th thesis of Marxism-Feminism.