“Unhappy marriage” links are bunk, and self-defeating. The very performance of mutual exclusivity dooms the movement – prefer the perm

Hodaie ‘22 [Sara Hodaie, undergraduate student at The University of Western Ontario making some very good arguments; “Naught is Fair in Love and War: Reframing the Partnership Between Marxism and Feminism”; 04-01-2022; Tulips: The Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies Undergraduate Journal, ; accessed 07-19-2024] dliang

Nevertheless, these battles oppose distinct and individual forms of oppression. Though they converge, there is a danger in essentializing them as one. This has been the historical mode of Marxism, wherein classical theorists discounted the existence of patriarchy by assimilating it into explanations of class struggle.18 This approach, known as reductionism, reduces systems of oppression to one concern, discounting and minimising the multitude of other structural forces which lead to the increased marginalisation of certain groups.19 These two battles must rather develop an intersectional relationship, recognizing that the institutions which they aim to abolish converge to amplify the oppression of women, especially those of lower socioeconomic status and various marginalised groups. This equal appreciation which Marxism and feminism must develop is possible but impaired in an analysis of their relationship as a marriage. Hartmann’s analogy obscures the fundamental obligation of a strong relationship between Marxism and feminism for the fulfillment of their aims. It embarks on analysis from a framework of innate duality, which renders the parallels and junctions between the Marxist and feminist struggles ambiguous. This poses a risk of cyclical antagonism, wherein Marxism and feminism habitually contend upon which party holds sovereignty. Ironically, positing Marxism and feminism as a set of allied battles in a corresponding war transfers analysis from a schema of disunity and digresses focus towards the necessitation of a symbiotic relationship. It clearly demonstrates the prerequisite of a reciprocal relationship in achieving the aim of both Marxism and feminism and thereby makes compulsory the cooperation of the two. Further, it guides both parties to a common cause, which delineates the essence of their relationship.

This common cause, or “war”, may be regarded as the conceptual lifeblood at the core of both Marxism and feminism. For interpretation of this war, analysis of the respective ideological aims of Marxism and feminism must be conducted. While the material struggle or Marxist battle is in the abolition of capitalism, its fundamental objective is the creation of a classless society.20 While Marx perceived the notion of class as chiefly of economic character, contemporary Marxists and feminists have revised the denotation of class to include other explanatory principles which more broadly apprehend the complexities of class relations, including that of gender.21 Thus, the crux of the Marxist struggle is the creation of a society vacant of oppressive hierarchies. As per the modern Marxian understanding of class division, Marxism must additionally aim to abolish systems which contribute to the oppression of women. Is this not too, the most elemental aim of the feminist struggle? As previously addressed, the ambition of feminism is the eradication of patriarchy, a hierarchical system of oppression which relies on male dominance and control. Affairs of patriarchy, just as those of capitalism, extend to permeate all social relations, typifying normative standards of human existence, and exemplifying a deeply secured system of oppression. Feminism thus aims to abolish not solely a system of male dominance, but a wider societal structure of oppression. Thus, while the concrete, readily discernable battles of both Marxism and feminism oppose distinct social institutions, the essence of their goals remains indistinguishable: the dissolution of oppressive and hierarchical systems. This is the war wherein Marxism and feminism must ally. The reciprocal, contributive relationship which Marxism and feminism necessitate in order to succeed in this war can be further delineated through hypothetical analysis. Take the Marxist battle: If capitalism were to disintegrate tomorrow, the systems of domination and oppression which Marxism seeks to eradicate will remain. Public ownership will replace the control of the means of production, yet the supplementary principles which contribute to class formation will endure, along with their cultural bigotries. While class may no longer include one's socioeconomic status, the proletariat will continue as exploited based on their ancillary marginalised identities, including gender. Thus, veritable achievement of the Marxist goal not only requires the contribution of feminism but is one with feminism. The creation of a classless society necessitates the abolition of patriarchy and its consequential echelon. The same holds true in the case of feminism. Suppose a sudden eradication of the patriarchy. Positions of power would be shared equally among women and men, the values and beliefs relegating women to the realm of the inferior suddenly dissolve. This would not alter the circumstance of millions of women throughout the globe who remain in positions of exploitation under capitalism, overworked and underpaid. Women would remain oppressed and exploited by the economic structure. Thus, Marxism and feminism are necessary allies, reliant upon each other for both their individual fulfillment and prosperity in the broader war of oppressive hierarchical relations.

This relationship is not confined solely to the spheres of Marxism and feminism. All legitimate social movements, including, yet not limited to those standing in opposition of racial, LGBTQIA2S+, or human rights injustices may be considered battles in this war, allies, and contributors to both Marxist and feminist ideologies. The insurgency against social oppression is not confined to the spheres of gender and economy. It is necessary for Marxism and feminism to not only see each other as equal 69 but to consider in this affiliation the perspective of other sociocultural frameworks so as to realise their battles and prevail in succeeding systemic oppression. This war permeates the entirety of human existence, dictating the course of one's life from the moment of inception and circulating itself within the collective consciousness. Without the symbiotic relationship between Marxism, feminism, and their corresponding allies, such a task cannot be successfully undertaken. Perhaps the words of Simone De Beauvoir best illustrate the imminence of this relation; “All oppression creates a state of war, and this is no exception.” 22