"For women's liberation: a comradely critique of the Manifesto "

By Charles Brown (1997)


By _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ , every Marxist knows the A,B,C's
of historical materialism or the materialist conception of history. The
history of all human society, since the breaking up of the ancient communes,
is a history of class struggles between oppressor and oppressed. Classes are
groups that associate in a division of labor to produce their material means
of existence.

In _The German Ideology_, Marx and Engels asserted an elementary
anthropological or "human nature" rationale for this conception. In a
section titled "History: Fundamental Condtions" they say:
... life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation ,
clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the
production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act a
fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years
ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human
life."

Production and economic classes are the starting point of Marxist analysis
of human society, including in the Manifesto, because human life, like all
plant and animal life must fulfill biological needs to exist as life at all.
It is an appeal to biologic ( which I support, all anti-vulgar materialist
critiques to the contrary notwithstanding, but that's another essay).
Whatever, humans do that is "higher" than plants and animals, we cannot do
if we do not first fulfill our plant/animal like needs. Therefore, the
"higher" (cultural, semiotic etc.) human activities are limited by the
productive activities. This means that historical materialism starts with
human nature, our natural species qualities.

Yet, it is fundamental in biology that the basic life sustaining processes
of a species are twofold. There is obtaining the material means of life and
subsistence or success of survival of the liviing generation, for existence
("production"). But just as fundamentally there is reproduction or success
in creating a next generation of the species that is fertile, and survives
until it too reproduces viable offspring. Whoever heard of a one genearation
species ? In fact, one test of two individual animals being of the same
species is their ability to mate and produce viable offspring. We can
imagine a group of living beings with the ultimate success in eating and
drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. But if they do not
reproduce, they are either not a species or they are an extinct species
(unless the individuals are immortal).
Thus, having premised their theory in part on human biology, our
"species-being", Marx and Engels were obligated to develop historical
materialism, the theory of the Manifesto, based not only on the logic of
subsistence production, but also on the logic of next generation
reproduction.

In _The German Ideology_ , they do recognize reproduction as a "fundamental
condition of history" along with production. However, they give
reproduction, or at least, "the family" a subordinate "fundamental" status
to production when they say:

"The third circumstance which from the very outset, enters into historical
development, is that men, who daily remake their own life begin to make
other men, to propagate their kind: the relation between man and woman'
parents and children, the family. The family, which to begin with is the
only social relationship, becomes later, when increased needs create a new
social relations and the increased population new needs, a subordinate
one..."

My thesis in this comradely critique ( I really do love Big Daddy Karl and
Uncle Fred overall) is that the mode of reproduction (in the broad sense,
including, but not limited to social institutions called "the" family) of
human beings remains throughout human history ,even after classes arise,
equally fundamental with the mode of production in shaping society, even
with the "new social relations" that come with "increased population." For
there to be history in the sense of many generations of men and women all of
the way up to Marx, Engels and us today, men had to do more than "begin to
make other men." Women and men had to complete making next generations by
sexually uniting and rearing them for thousands of years. Otherwise history
would have ended long ago. We would be an extinct species. An essential
characteristic of history is its existence in the "medium" of multiple
generations. Thus, with respect to historical materialism, reproduction is
as necessary as production. The upshot is women's liberation must be put on
the same footing with workers's liberation in the Marxist project.


Not only that . Not only did Marx and Engels in The German Ideology give
reproduction a "subordinate" fundamental status compared with production.
They did it by the following sleight of hand: in part population increase or
the success of reproduction somehow makes reproduction less important in
"entering into historical development" as a "fundamental condition" (or
"prmary historical relation" in another translation; also, "basic aspect of
social activity").

This is quite a misogynist dialectic, given that "men" are in the first
premise and the third premise, but women only are mentioned explicitly in
the latter. It is also an idealist philosophical error, because the theory
now tends to abstract from the real social life of individuals in
reproduction. Another passage in The German Ideology demonstrates the same
sort of magical rather than scientific use of "dialectic" with respect to
reproduction, and in this case the impact on the materialist philosophical
consistency of their argument is more direct and explicit. They say:


"Only now, after having considered four moments, four aspects of primary
historical relations,do we find that man also possesses "consciousness". But
even from the outset this is not "pure" consciousness. The "mind" is  from
the outsed afflicted with the curse of being "burdened" with matter, which
here makes its appearance in the form of agitated layers of air, sounds, in
short, of language. Language is as old as consciousness...language like
consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with
other men...Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social
product, and remains so as long as men exist at all. Consciousness is at
first of course, merely consciousness concerning the immediate sensuous
environment and consciousness of the limited connection with other persons
and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious... This
sheep-like or tribal consciousness receives further development or extension
through increased productivity, the increase in needs, and , what is
fundamental to both of these, the increase in population. With these there
develops the division of labor, which was originally nothing but the
division of labor in the sexual act, then the division of  labor which
develops spontaneously or "naturally" by virtue of natural predisposition
(e.g. physical strength, needs, accidents etc., etc.) Division of labor
becomes truly such from the moment when a division of material and mental
labor appears. From this moment onwards consciousness can  really flatter
itself that it is something other than consciousness of Existing practice,
that it really represents something without representing something real (as
the semioticians' signifier is abitrarily related to what it signifies
-C.B); from now on consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from
the world and to proceed to formation of "pure" theory, theology,
philosophy, morality, etc."


In this long paragraph (only partially quoted), we see Marx and Engels's
early formulation and explanation of the origin of what Engels later
famously dubbed the fundamental question of philosophy -materialism or
idealism ? - is rooted in the "second" original division of labor. For some
reason, the "first" original division of labor, which gives women equivalent
complementary status with men, just disappears and is replaced by a
productive division of labor, between "men's" minds and hands. And to make
it worse, once again, the "reason" the reproductive division of labor
disappears as an ongoing fundamental determinate throughout history is its
own success in creating a population explosion. This seems to be an error of
substituting a negative and destructive dialectic in thought for what in
being and becoming is the most fundamentally positive nad fruitful dialectic
in human history - reproduction.
Here is a key connecting point: then Marx and Engels (whom I love dearly)
substitute for the reproductive division of labor a productive division of
labor as the fundamentally determining contradiction of historical
development. This division of labor, between predominantly mental and
predominantly physical labor, becomes the root of development of classes,
the importance of which is declared in the first sentence of the Manifesto.
Yet, Marx and Engels commit the same error of abstraction at one level that
they criticize at the next level: the error of mental laborers in
abstracting from the concrete reality of physcial labor. This is also seen
from the fact that they keep depending on "population increase", which is
another name for reproduction and "the sexual act", to explain the origin of
increased "productivity" and "needs", which seem to be the "premises" for
the division between material dn mental labor (and are because of the role
of material surpluses in making possible creation of the class of
predominantly mental laborers). Thus, we might say that the original
idealist philosophical inconsistency of Marxist materialism is abstraction
from reproduction. For a fuller historical materialism , the theories of
workers liberation and women's liberation must be integrated. This may be
done on the basis of Marx and Engels's fundamental logic carried out more
consistently. Feminism need not be added on to , but derived from the
original premises.


 By 1884, with the impact of anthropological studies ( and perhaps greater
interaction with women in his maturity) in the Preface to the First Edition
of _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_, Engels says:


"According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in
history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of
immediate life. This, again ("again" ? Before it was only "production"
-C.B.) , is of a twofold character: on the one side, the production of the
means of existence, of food, clothing and shelter and the tools necessary
for that production; on the other side, production of human beings
themselves, the propagation of the  species. The social organization under
which the people of a  particular historical epoch and a particular country
live is determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development
of labor on the one hand and of the family on the other. "


This formulation and the change in it from that in _The German Ideology_
support the basic idea I am trying to get across in this essay: that
reproduction is an equally fundamental, not a subordinate, process with
production in shaping society from its origins to modern (and post-modern)
times. But Engels's formulation in _The Origin_ is after Marx's death and
late in their heroic joint project in developing Marxism. Thus, the main
classic writings of Marxism, and Marx and Engels's political activity
focussed in production and political economy not the family and the other
institutions of reproduction. The Origin's is the best scientific
formulation of the materialistic conception of history even after "the"
family is surrounded by larger social institutions in later stages of human
history, as asserted in the passage from The German Ideology, quoted in an
earlier comment. Even under capitalism, many of the social relations and
institutions that are quantitatively greater then those in the "nuclear"
family (See anthropologist G.P. Murdock on the "nuclear" family) are part of
reproduction, such as school and training, and even medical services and
recreation.
More importantly, reproduction and production have qualitatively different
functions, both fundamental in constituting our species existence, our
species-being. In other words, not only are reproductive relations not
quantitatively less important in determining history, but from the
beginning, from the true original division of labor as in the sexual act ,
reproduction has had a qualitatively, complementarily necessary relation
with production in creating history. From the standpoint of our uniquely
human species character (our culture), it might be said that production
makes objects and reproduction creates subjects.

Thus, problems in dealing with subjectivity in the history of Marxism (see
my "Activist Materialism and the ' End ' of Philosophy") may in part be
remedied by rethinking Marxism based on equating and even privileging
reproduction over production n interpreting and acting to change the world.

This is seen as even more so when we consider that there is now for Marxism
a scientific, materialist, truthseeking need for intellectual affirmative
action in using empirical study of reproduction to reexplain history to
compensate for the sole focus on production. Reproduction has always been
scientifically coequal, as demonstrated by Marx and Engels's clipped
comments and "admissions" quoted previously. They never refute their own
words about the importance of reproduction in historical materialist theory.
They just uncharacteristically fail to develop one of their own stated
fundamental materialist premises. Living Marxists must creatively redevelop
historical materialism based on this compensation.

Dialectical materialism holds that the relationship between subject and
object is dialectical, of course. It is "vulgar" materialism that portrays
the subject as one-sidedly determined by the object. Reproduction and
production are complementary opposites, and their unity in struggle is the
fundamental motive force of history today as in ancient times.

However, when I say "reproduction creates subjects", I mean reproduction in
a broader sense than only sexual conception and birth. Reproduction includes
all childrearing, from the home through all school and any other type of
training. It is all"caring labor" as defined by Hilary Graham in "Caring: A
Labour of Love" (1983). Reproduction is all of those labors that have as a
direct and main purpose making and caring for a human subject or personality
as contrasted with those labors of production which have as a direct purpose
making objects useful to humans. Reproduction includes affirmative
self-creation.

Under capitalism with alienation, production's impact in making subjects is
primarily "negative" or indirect. Conversely, reproduction indirectly makes
objects, in the sense that the subject, the human laborer, who is the direct
and "positive" purpose of reproduction, is the possessor of labor power, the
active factor making objects in production (directly).



Production makes objects; reproduction creates subjects.
This conception of reproduction is consistent with Marx's basic reasoning in
Capital (the book). In his famous development of the concept of the labor
theory fo value (beyond Adam Smith and Ricardo) and surplus value, he
asserts that human labor is the only source of new (emphasis) value in the
production process. The human laborer and the means of production (tools and
raw materials) all add exchange value to a commodity. But the means of
production add no more value to the commodity than the values added to them
by a previous human laborer in the production of the means of production.
The human labor power is the only element in the process that can add more
value to the commodity than the values that went into producing the labor
power itself. The labor of a worker in one-half day (or now one-quarter of a
day) produces enough value to pay for the necessities creating the worker's
labor power for a full day's work. The value produced by the worker in the
second half of the day is the surplus value exploited by the capitalist. The
creation of the worker's labor power is done in reproduction, in the broad
sense I have been using that concept in these comments. Thus, reproduction
is the "only source" of the only source of new value (that is not a typo).
Subjectivity is the "source" of the unique ability (over the means of
production) of the human component in the production process to produce more
value than went into producing it.

Subjectivity is the source of a sort of Marxist "mind over matter."
Reproduction is the source of subjectivity. In relation to the discussion,
supra, of the primacy of reproduction as the original division of labor
(Marx and Engels said that; not me) over the division of predominantly
material and predominantly mental labor, we might deduce that it was (and
is) within reproduction that the mind and matter are non-antagonistically
related as opposites (when "men" were simultaneously theoriticians in their
practice as mentioned in "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844").
Sociology and common experience teach that historically, women have been the
primary reproductive laborers - from childrearing to housework, from
elementary and high school teaching to nursing. Beyond pregnancy, women's
"assignment" to reproductive roles is historically and ideologically caused
, not biologically or genetically caused or necessary( see, for example,
_Not in Our Genes_, by Richard Lewontin, et al.). But as a result, women are
a historically constituted, exploited and oppressed reproductive class,
whose defining labor is as fundamental to our material life as that of the
productive laborers Marx and Engels focussed on. Thus, the materialist
conception of history and the new Red Feather Manifesto, must be modified,
and women's liberation put on equal footing with workers'(women and men)
liberation in the Marxist project. It is especially incumbent on we male
Marxists to be and to be known as champions of feminism.
----

Charles Brown is a political activist in Detroit , Michigan. He has degrees
in anthropology, and is a member of the bar. His favorite slogan is "All
Power to the People !"