Revolutionary Socialism and the Woman's Movement

Front matter

REFORM OR REVOLUTION. A Lecture delivered at Boston, Mass., by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.

Socialists are not reformers. The key-note of this address shows why the working class can get nothing out of Reforms. Once read by an intelligent person he is proof against any Reform craze.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM FROM UTOPIA TO SCIENCE. By Frederick Engels. Translated from the German by Daniel De Leon. Price, One Penny.

I. Introductory

Throughout the whole period of civilisation woman has been a slave. The form of slavery may have varied from age to age, but in one way or another woman’s written history has been a record of dependence and subjection, and to-day the wrongs and degradation which slavery brings weigh more cruelly upon her than ever before. During the past century all the evils of society have been intensified by the monster power of capitalism; there is more poverty, more shame, and more oppression in our midst than was ever dreamt of in former days. And wherever there is oppression, it is women who are most oppressed by law and custom; wherever there is shame, upon women the stain is deepest; wherever there is poverty, it is women who suffer the greatest privations.

We hear much from reformers and moralists of the famous "Woman Question," but women themselves are at last awakening to the fact that all this questioning does nothing to alleviate the misery of their bondage. This is the healthy and hopeful sign of modern feminine slavery; women are everywhere beginning to recognise the inferiority of their social position and to revolt against it. No matter how heavily nor how lightly the invisible chains may weigh upon her individually, a woman who has truly become conscious of her subordinate position must always be a woman in revolt. To her there comes a burning sense of the shame and disgrace of subjection; there is always with her the living reality of slavery—a weight of chains insufferable, yet powerful enough to hold her down, strangling and impeding her efforts to be free.

Everywhere increasing numbers of women are beginning to feel this yoke—becoming conscious that they are born in bondage—and everywhere more and more are giving active signs that they can strive for freedom. It is no longer merely a case of a "Woman Question" bound up in the volumes of learned theorists; there is to-day an actual Woman's Movement where in the past there was only a mark of interrogation.

The world in general is at last startled out of its indifference by these signs, and on all sides there is much talk of woman and her slavery, of woman and her hopes of freedom. The many conflicting opinions (all equally assured) of course result in much conflict of action.

It is necessary that the Socialist Labour Party should make clear its position towards so prominent and so confused a movement in society. Socialism stands for social freedom for all, and therefore it must very definitely stand for the emancipation of the greatest sufferers from social bondage—namely, the women. In the sense that the feminist movement also professes to be a movement towards the emancipation of women, it has a very special significance for the Socialist Labour Party. And it is all the more urgent that prominence should be given to the true Socialist position because the bourgeois feminists have received great support in their campaign from many reformists calling themselves Socialists, who, pretending to serve the cause of women, serve that of the enemy instead.

What then is the position of revolutionary Socialism towards this modern feminist movement? How far is Socialism in sympathy with feminism, and in what are the two movements antagonistic? Before stating the difference it is better to show the points of agreement. Briefly stated, the sympathy between Socialism and feminism consists in this:—both are alike antagonistic to the reactionary principles of the "anti-feminists."

These reactionary principles are based upon the theory that women are naturally subject to men because they are naturally inferior. This assertion is generally made with a pretty "half-concealing, half-revealing" veil of sentiment, but, plainly stated, it would appear to mean that social inequality of the sexes is the necessary result of the physical and mental inferiority of the female sex. Now, this statement is nothing more than a loose generalisation made from the consideration of a few particular cases; to prove it satisfactorily would entail an enormous amount of labour in the way of research, experiment, and statistical enquiry, carried out by persons of proved capacity. As it is, however, the charge comes from wholly irresponsible, not to say prejudiced, quarters, and is made without true scientific authority. In our present state of knowledge we have no proof of either physical or mental inferiority in the female sex. It must always be remembered that right development in both sexes brings with it great and necessary differences between male and female. The healthy, well-developed woman does not become masculine, either physically or mentally, any more than the healthy man becomes feminine. Woman's aim is not to reach to man's estate, but to her own. This must not on any account be disregarded in making a comparison between men and women; if it is the comparison will have no value. Bearing this in mind, it can easily be seen that the usual arguments in no way prove the inferiority of women.

As regards physique, recent scientific research does not bear out the theory of female inferiority. We must not judge from mere outward appearance; superior physique is not proved by superior height, nor by superior strength of certain muscles, such as the biceps in the arm. A better standard to judge by would seem to be the total vitality of the individual as manifested in the physique. In this respect what evidence modern research has given goes to show that women on the average are actually superior to men. This would appear to be a strange anomaly, considering the disadvantages imposed upon women in regard to physical develop- ment, did we not remember the greater vitality required by women in the natural function of motherhood.

In regard to mental inferiority the main argument has been made from a comparison of the size of the male and female brain. There have been men who have passed laborious years in trying to show that the average female brain is smaller than the average male brain. Professor Bischoff claimed to have proved that on the average woman's brain weighs 100 grams less than man's brain, and from this he confidently asserted that the mental inferiority of women was demonstrated. On the death of the learned Professor it was found that his own brain weighed just five grams less than the average of the despised female sex! The pathetic irony of this case has no doubt tended to cool that particular form of anti-feminist zeal.

As a matter of, fact these experiments have proved nothing. Some of the heaviest brains ever weighed have belonged to idiots and to the insane; and in comparing the proportion of brain-mass in men and women with the weight of the entire body, it appears that the females have the advantage by ¼ per cent. This argument from brain weight is therefore totally inconclusive, even granting the unscientific supposition that the weight of the brain is the criterion of mental capacity.

Another favourite contention is that woman's inferiority is proved by the absence of transcendent genius in women. This assertion, like the other, is not proved, nor is it capable of proof. We are too apt to judge genius merely by prominence and publicity, and these are just the things which most women avoid and dread as tending to deprive them of a certain vague abstraction called "womanliness," upon which they are taught to depend for success in life. How far women (in spite of a seclusion partly enforced and partly induced) have excelled in the past, may never be known—only here and there in history do we get a glimpse behind the veil—but it is certain that renown and success have for the most part been reaped by men. The fame of Socrates was supreme in his age, and comes down with glory to ours; but Socrates acknowledged superior genius in a woman when he sat as a learner at the feet of Aspasia.

But even if women's physical and mental inferiority were fully proved we must remember that the argument cuts both ways. Bebel, Mill, and others have long ago pointed out that inferiority of the female sex would be an argument against the subjection of women, and not for it. As Bebel says: "the laws of nature hold good in human life. If a gardener or planter sought to maintain with regard to a given plant that it could not grow, although he made no trial, perhaps even hindered its growth by wrong treatment, such a man would be pronounced a fool by his intelligent neighbours." Now, if a similar statement originated with a woman there would not be wanting men to generalise upon the instance as a proof of the incapacity of the female mind for logical methods of thought; yet the supposed logical mind of man has not generally perceived that the alleged inferiority of women is in reality an argument in favour of instituting equality of the sexes in social benefits. Before we can judge whether women are naturally deficient as compared with men they must have an equal chance with men of development. This they certainly have not at present; opportunities of larger knowledge and experience in social life, which are given to men, are denied to women. In nearly all civilised countries women are still refused the right to take part in the making of the laws which they must obey. Ali sorts of difficulties, legal and conventional, are put in the way of women who desire to take upon themselves their own responsibilities. Women, in fact, are not given equal social opportunities with men.

The question of natural inferiority or otherwise seems therefore of minor importance, It matters little to any practical woman whether her sex as a whole is less capable than the male sex as a whole. She may very well leave that matter to those who love to wrangle about non-essentials. She may very well turn her attention to the vastly more important question—that of the unequal social opportunities of the sexes, of the undoubted social inferiority of women.

So far, then, the Socialist and feminist movements are in full agreement. Socialism is in sympathy with the exposure of the superficial and illogical arguments of the anti-feminists. Socialism also recognises all the world over that women must have equal freedom with men if ever social freedom is established at all. And, furthermore, in regard to the present. Suffragist movement, the S.L.P. does not share the bourgeois horror of the mildly "militant tactics" of the "Neo-Suffragists." The S.L.P. gives credit to the Suffragists for their organised efforts to gain publicity for their cause. Certainly the methods used are frequently of a vulgar nature. But what of that? As a certain nineteenth century wit has said, "the one touch of nature that makes the whole world kin is—vulgarity." This, at any rate, would seem to be a means of proving kinship with the bourgeois politicians of the House of Commons—and for the Suffragists, whose aim is a mere reform of bourgeois legislation, that must surely be a desirable end.

In any case the matter is of no concern to Socialism, and the Socialist Labour Party in no way bases its opposition to the Suffragist movement upon it. But the real significance of that opposition must now be considered, the points of agreement between Socialism and feminism having been mentioned by way of introduction. The statement of difference is more important than the statement of agreement, because the whole action of those who desire the true and complete emancipation of woman depends upon their understanding of this side of the question.

II. Principles Of Socialism

In considering the false basis upon which the feminist movement rests it is necessary first to make clear the basis upon which Socialism rests. The basic principles of Socialism must therefore be briefly outlined.

The development of society is conditioned by the invention and use of those instruments with which the whole wealth of society is produced. Throughout history the owners of the most important means of producing wealth have been enabled by the power of ownership to form separate and dominant classes in society. The resulting conflict of interests between those who had the power and privileges of ownership and those who were disinherited caused perpetual struggles between the classes. In modern times the struggle is between capitalist class and working class. With the introduction of machinery into industry and the expropriation of the peasantry the power of industrial capital was enormously increased. The owners of the new productive machinery formed the rising capitalist class. The working class, on the other hand, was largely recruited from the expropriated peasantry, who, being deprived of their lands, were forced to enter the towns and there to live by selling themselves to the capitalist owners as workers of the machines. Thus capitalism acquired an enormous impetus, and the foundations of modern wage slavery were laid.

The wages paid to such workers represent the price of the labour-power which they sell to the owners of the machinery of production. Labour-power being the only thing which a member of the dispossessed class has for sale, and by the sale of which he can live, he is forced to bring that labour-power (and he himself goes along with it of course) into the market, to endeavour to sell it there for what it will fetch, in just the same way as any other goods are sold. If the supply of labour-power is large in relation to the demand for it, the price (wages) will be low. If the supply of labour-power decreases relatively to the demand, the price will go up. Thus that price (wages) constantly rises and falls above and below a central point—that centre being the cost of production (or, more correctly, the value) of labour-power. The cost of production of labour-power is equal to the amount of labour which is necessarily expended upon the production of those things which create, maintain, and reproduce that labour-power. This, in the long run and on the average, is what a worker will get by the sale of his power to labour—only this and nothing more.

Now this bargain between capitalist and worker must also be understood from the capitalist's point of view. Why the worker has to make the bargain is obvious; he has no other means of living. But why does the capitalist make the bargain? Because in operating the tools of production, with their wonderful modern productive powers, the workers will produce more than the equivalent of that amount of wealth which the capitalist must return to them in the form of wages in order that they may go on living and come back to work another day. In the capacity of owners the capitalists appropriate and enjoy this surplus-wealth created by the labour of the working class; not, be it marked, because they take any active part in production, but merely because they are owners. To the owner goes the product.

When the workers themselves will own and control the machinery of production which they alone operate, they will enjoy the full product of their labour, but so long as there is a parasitic master-class standing between them and their instruments they will be robbed of the greater part of that which they produce.

Of old, the owner of the tool was also its operator; production was then an individual affair. To-day, by the highly organised division of labour, production has become co-operative, or social. Ownership, however, is still private, or individual. This brings about a contradiction at the very heart of society. The development from private production to social production has yet to be completed by the development from private ownership to social ownership. Nothing short of this is Socialism. All reformation of the present capitalist system is useless to the workers, since by the system of buying and selling labour-power which capitalism makes necessary to them, they are for ever robbed by a small minority in society—the owners, or capitalist class. And this robbery is always increasing in degree; the result of improved productive methods is a lessening of the demand for labour, and, consequently, an increase of the "unemployed army," i.e., an increased supply of labour in relation to the demand for it. In this way wages are lowered and capitalist robbery becomes greater; and greater also becomes the poverty, degradation, and slavery of the workers.

Thus the only hope of the workers is Socialism. To build their hopes and waste their energy and resources on attempts at reforming capitalism is mere illusion.

Now, in all this, the interests of working women are just the same as the interests of working men—directly opposed to the interests of the members of the capitalist class, women and men alike. The question is one of class, not of sex. Sex antagonism may have a very practical interest for the women of the bourgeoisie, but for women of the working class the practical question is the question of class antagonism.

From a wider outlook it may be shown that the true interests of all women are in reality bound up with the interests of the majority, the working women; because no woman, whatever be her position in society, can escape altogether from the burden of the age-long degradation of her sex while that degradation in any way endures. But, while this is fully recognised, too much is not to be expected in that direction. It must be remembered that the feminist reform movement is naturally very attractive to women in the capitalist camp. And, moreover, class prejudice is a thing that dies hard.

Therefore, whilst acknowledging that the true interests of all women lie in Socialism, and that in this sense there is a sex question distinct from class, we must endeavour to be practical and not to forget that the question of Socialism is essentially a working class question, and for all practical purposes must be regarded from the working class point of view.

The feminist movement, like other reform movements, is of direct interest to the bourgeoisie only, and not to the workers. Feminism, in its larger sense, claims equal political and social rights for women as for men within the framework of the present social system. Socialism claims that even if this were fully achieved it would be no true emancipation of women. Only those women would benefit who belong to the privileged, or propertied, class in society. The majority of women, like the majority of men, belong to the wage-earning class, and this class cannot benefit by the reform of capitalism owing to its condition of social life—the selling of labour-power—which gives to capitalist masters of both sexes the means of carrying on industry by an ever-increasing robbery of the workers.

III. The Subjection Of Women

To those who see effects only and do not trace back to causes woman's struggle appears merely as a struggle of sex against sex; but a wider issue is really involved. The woman question is but a part of the wider question of social evolution from the earliest times.

The basic mistake of the feminists is that they do not recognise this, and therefore cannot trace the true cause of the inequality of the sexes. Sometimes they attribute women's social inferiority to her physical weakness; sometimes to the moral weakness of man. But these differences of the sexes, if they exist at all, are more likely to have arisen as effects of sex-inequality than to be causes thereof.

Socialism, on the other hand, does not look for an explanation of social enigmas in any such vague theories. Socialism holds that human society has an essentially economic basis. To Morgan and to Marx is chiefly due the scientific research which shows that the evolution of human society has progressed in accordance with the development of the tools of production and the methods of their ownership. Here we have the secret of the origin of all forms of social slavery, the subjection of women among the rest. Without the introduction of economic inequality, sex-inequality could never have spread throughout the civilised world as it has done. And this economic inequality was itself a quite natural result of the primitive division of labour and the primitive development of the tool.

Women of today, brought up to believe in their helpless inferiority, would gain somewhat in self-respect if they were taught instead the scientific facts of their position; because, while it is true that during all historic periods the position of women has been one of degrading dependence, this was not the case in pre-historic ages. But, of course, while Morgan, Engels, Bebel, and others have shown that the social position of women was superior in barbaric times before the growth of private property, we must clearly understand that it was only relatively so. Privilege in those days had a much more obvious materialistic basis than in civilised times, during which the fashion has grown with the growth of modern social evils of covering up these evils as prettily as may be. The famous "Mother-right" of barbarism was not by any means of an idyllic or chivalrous description. The first division of labour was of a purely physiological nature. Man was the fighter; woman was the rearer of the race. Man procured the food; woman prepared it. It was for man to "fight, hunt, and sit down;" for woman to bear, nourish, and bring up the children. Descent was in the female line simply because the custom of group-marriage between all the members of certain different clans (gentes) made possible only the definite recognition of the mother. This "Mother-right" naturally gave power and importance to women as having control over the children. As Morgan says:—"The members of her own gens, in all probability, predominated in the household, which gave full force to the maternal bond, and made the woman, rather than the man, the centre of the family." What the Suffragists of to-day are striving for, and a good deal more besides, was enjoyed by women in those barbaric days, such "women's rights" being regarded as merely natural. The women not only voted (e.g., in the elections of military chiefs), but had a seat and voice tn the councils. Ancient historians, such as Tacitus, and modern travellers alike, bear witness to the rights of this primitive variety of "Suffragette."

The development of private property was the cause of the downfall of the matriarchal system. Under that system the family groups were the basis of society, and property was hereditary in the gens. When a man married he did not become a member of the gens of his wife, although he lived among her people; he remained always a member of the gens to which his mother belonged, and when he died his property accrued to his mother's gens and not to the gens to which his wife (or wives) and his children belonged; thus a child could never inherit from his father, as they did not belong to the same gens. Such a system was only suited to societies in which property was undeveloped. A contradiction arose as the forms of property multiplied and its importance increased. It was then more and more individually appropriated for the sake of power and ease, and the words mine and thine began to have a fuller significance. As a natural result, inheritance became an important social factor; but so long as children belonged to the mother's gens they could not inherit from their father, however great his importance as a man of property. This contradiction was the cause of the great change from the matriarchal system to descent in the male line, and, finally, in advanced societies, to the introduction of monogamy. Desiring to make their own children their heirs men took possession of their wives. Instead of living in the families of their wives, they took their wives to live with them, and thus the idea gradually grew up of female morality and virtue as distinct from male morality and virtue—an idea which has descended to our own day veiled in a sickly sentimentality which can only partially conceal its materialistic basis.

Another result of increasing productive power by development of the tool was the second great division of labour in society—that of freemen and slaves. Instead of eating their prisoners of war, the conquerors found that, by the use of tools of production, they could force them to produce a sufficient amount to cover their own necessary sustenance and yet leave a surplus for the enjoyment of their masters. This was the first form of exploitation and the first division of society into classes with antagonistic interests. The female slaves not only shared in the degradation of this exploitation, but they suffered further degradation because of their sex. Their helpless position made it possible for men to allow themselves a license which they now did everything in their power (frequently with the utmost brutality) to forbid to their wives. This was the origin of that special kind of parasitism to which all women of the privileged class are born, which enables them to maintain their "respectable" position by the sacrifice and degradation of innumerable women of the proletariat. True monogamy has never been generally established in any society; it is everywhere the exception and not the rule. The present form of marriage is legal monogamy supplemented by prostitution—this is the terrible price which is paid for the reputed honourable position of the wives of civilisation.

Thus the subordination of the whole female sex was first brought about by the power of property. It is probable that in some parts of the world, and in some ages, women made a noble resistance, and fought for their freedom; the legends of the Amazons have in this a scientific explanation. But gradually men increased their ascendency, and women being now dependent upon them for subsistence, not merely as men but as owners of property, were more and more forced into a subordinate and submissive position. The warlike feudal times gave an impetus to this development. These were rough days, in which men did not spare each other; but, as laws and legends testify, they spared women even less.

The development of capitalism was a complete revolution in society, and, among other things, it revolutionised the social position of women. The more brutal laws and customs of feudalism were now out of date, but the new order brought with it a new form of slavery. With the introduction of machinery into industry—the Industrial Revolution—the now dominant capitalist class made the discovery that there was a quite other "sphere" for working class women besides that of the home—namely, the factory. They could be employed to work the machines at lower wages than men, and the consequence was that women and children were exploited in the factories with such cruelty that it is obvious the rough brutality of former days had only given place to a still more revolting form of brutality.

The old idea of "Woman's Sphere" being the Home, to which sentimentalists still cling in spite of facts, was in accordance with the conditions of life under individual production. The home, however, meant more for women in those days than the mere rearing of children. They then took an active part in production within their homes—not as wage-slaves, but for the family benefit. The home-tasks of the women before the nineteenth century included spinning, knitting, baking, the making of clothes, soap, candles, and many other domestic necessaries. All these tasks are now executed by capitalist industry, and an ever-increasing number of women are forced by modern social conditions out of the home into the factories and workshops, there to take once up more a part in production—not now as wives and daughters producing for the family, but as wage-earners producing for the benefit of capitalist masters.

This entrance into the social productive sphere certainly gives to the working women of to-day a semblance of independence unknown before in woman's history. And it gives, moreover, a promise of true independence to come. But while capitalist masters must be served this seeming independence is but a means of enforcing the most cruel slavery ever known.

If a life of wage-slavery is bad for a man it is very much worse for a woman. Under capitalism women have entered nearly every line of production (many involving great danger or inevitable disease), but employment is always given to them as an inferior sort of goods. An exact comparison between the wages of men and women has never been made, but as far as the records go women's wages compare very unfavourably with those of men. It has been shown that the average wage of women manual workers (including the textile workers, whose wages are relatively high) is very little over 7/ per week. That is to say, women do not receive a "living wage." In very many trades (e.g., French polishing and the various branches of the printing industry) men's wages are two or three times as high as women’s wages. In the tailoring and other clothing trades employers seem to find a special opportunity for exploiting female labour. Women employed in these trades receive only 7/ to 16/ weekly for work for which men get 30/ to 40/. In one case a girl is reported as receiving 7/ per week and making seven pairs of trousers in that time, and then being threatened with dismissal for not having produced enough. A man's wage for the same work would be about 25/. Tables may be referred to in the reports on many other industries showing the inferior wages earned by women. Among shop-assistants women earn from £10 to £25 a year; men from £20 to £40. Taking an average, the difference is shown to be 33 per cent. in favour of the male shop-assistants. Where machinery is used women are not paid nearly so much as men for working the machines. A case is quoted by the authors of "Women's Work and Wages" of a large cycle works where 80 men were employed in 1902; in 1905 only 20 men were employed, women having replaced the rest. When the men were dismissed they were told that they could go home and send their wives instead of them. And why? The wages paid to the men had been from 30/ to 40/ per week; the highest wages given to the women for exactly the same work on the same machines was 18/ per week. The home is not "sacred" to capitalists when it is the home of wage-slaves from whom larger profits can be squeezed.