"Equal pay for equal work" | Gender, race, and class

The issue of gender-based inequality in pay was a prominent theme at this year’s Democratic National Convention. Numerous speakers called for “equal pay for equal work” (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/elizabeth_warren_at_dnc_when_we_turn_on_each_other_we_cant_unite_to_fight_back_against_a_rigged_system.html), and the final Democratic Party platform ratified by the Convention stated, “We will fight to secure equal pay for women” (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=117717).

Here in Massachusetts, pay equality has even taken a big step forward at the legislative level. On August 1, the Republican Governor, Charlie Baker, signed into law a bill requiring that “men and women be paid equally for comparable work” (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/08/01/massachusetts-equal-pay-comparable-work-baker-bill/).

All of this is of course an incredibly welcome development. Socialists have historically been and should continue to be involved in the fight against gender discrimination and inequality in wages in all sectors of the economy. Sexist inequality is unjust and in fact damaging to the interests of all working class people.

However, an anti-capitalist and intersectional approach to gender pay inequality requires ultimately taking the question a few additional steps further.

For instance, while the often-cited statistic -- that women in the US earn approximately 78% of what men earn -- is certainly outrageous, it is also the case that both Black men and women, and both Hispanic men and women, earn less than both White men and women (http://www.aauw.org/2015/07/21/black-women-pay-gap/).

Black men earn 75%, and Black women earn 64%, of what White men earn; while Hispanic men earn 86%, and Hispanic women earn 69%, of what White women earn (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html).

Moreover, it is ultimately necessary to talk about wage inequality as a function of class inequality. While winning an equivalent $10/hr wage for both men and women working full time at Wal-Mart is an important first step, it is simply insufficient for the conversation to end there. We also have to talk about the fact that the men and women working for $10/hr at Wal-Mart earn less than 1% of what top Wal-Mart executives earn (http://www1.salary.com/Rosalind-G-Brewer-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Wal-Mart-Stores-Inc.html).

As socialists, our end goal is not simply to secure an equivalent rate by which the labor of both the men and women in a given workplace or industry is exploited by their employer.

We should therefore strive to bring to the fore the fact that the “work” of all members of the working class is systematically undervalued against that of the upper and ruling class within the context of capitalist society.

 For instance, the current female President of Harvard University, who makes close to $1 million a year, exerts the same (if not less) magnitude of labor in a given year as the largely-female clerical workforce at Harvard who earn an average of 5% of what the President makes (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/16/administrator-salaries-990-2012/).

Or take the single richest individual in Massachusetts (who happens to be a woman), Abigail Johnson, CEO of Fidelity Investments, who has a net worth of $14 billion (http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2016/05/how_much_is_the_wealthiest_person_in_mas.html). Abigail inherited control of the financial corporate giant from her grandfather.

Now, if one wants to truly talk about “equal pay for comparable work,” there is no way that Abigail has done a comparable magnitude of work as, say, a male or female born into poverty who has had to work their entire life in order to survive and today has a (median) net worth of $45,000 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/); in other words, 0.000003% of Abigail’s net worth.

Lenin on the question of oppression, working class unity, and the process of engaging with the justified distrust that oppressed people feel towards those of the oppressor social group

I've been thinking a lot about the question of what it actually takes to build a truly united, multiracial, multigender, multi-all-forms-of-oppression, movement that is truly based in genuine solidarity and the collective striving toward mutual emancipation from exploitation and oppression.

It is of course an understatement to say that this is a very difficult task. This is precisely because capitalist society is so effective at dividing the working class and creating definite strata within the working class along the lines of various forms of social oppression. Black workers are invariably subjected to racist attitudes by white workers, and likewise between men and women, and so on. The distrust that exists within the minds of oppressed groups towards those of the oppressor social group -- regardless of class -- are quite real, and frankly understandable, in a strictly logical sense, because of the foregoing.

Thus, the task of establishing unity between oppressed groups as part of a larger united working class struggle for the abolition of capitalism presents very difficult challenges.

In particular, the question of building a revolutionary organization along these lines can be immensely confounding. Indeed, history is littered with social movements, revolutions, and even mass revolutionary parties which have foundered precisely on this contradiction; the contradiction between the needs of unity of the entire working class, and the immense enmity and suspicion which exists between them at present because of capitalist social relations.

Oftentimes, trust will breakdown between comrades within a group or social movement over this issue, with oppressed people feeling slighted, marginalized, or not taken sufficiently seriously.

First of all, I want to say that I actually don't think this is ultimately a matter of individuals being racist or sexist [though that certainly can and does happen on the left and even within revolutionary organizations].

I also don't think that racism or sexism or really, by definition, any form of oppression, in general -- as social constructions -- are the product of any one individual's attitudes. Rather, it is a product of the ensemble of social relations which obtain under capitalism.

Yet, the fact is that this oppression does exist, is real, and permeates virtually all of our relations within the system. Inequality exists between various strata of the working class due to this oppression -- in terms of their opportunity, livelihoods, well-beings -- which then in turn impacts oppressed people's sense of confidence and self-worth, etc., especially in relation to those strata of the working class which rest above them (not even to mention in relation to the upper classes of the dominant social group).

As I sometimes do, I decided to see what comrade V.I. Lenin may have to say on the matter. Now, I don't think that Lenin (or anyone for that matter), was an infallible genius or other such nonsense who always has the "correct" thing to say on every matter.

Nonetheless, I do think on this particular question he offers some important insights.

Marxism, feminism, and accusations of "class reductionism"

I recently engaged in a friendly debate with someone who was arguing that Marxism is antithetical to the contemporary struggle for women’s rights because Marx was a “class reductionist” who ignored women’s oppression as something to be dealt with “after the revolution.”

I felt I would reproduce a snippet of my comments here:

===

I just wanted to say a quick word as someone who identities as both a Marxist and a feminist.

In fact, Marx and Engels were well ahead of their time, viz., the stuggle for women’s emancipation. Even a terse reading of some of Marx’s collected works reveal him repeatedly inveighing against women’s oppression, both in society generally, and within the labor and socialist movements. Marx fought to have women included as full and equal members — including in leadership positions — in the various movements he engaged in as against many of his (bigoted) contemporaries.

He wrote that their could be no truly revolutionary movement without mass participation of women; indeed, he makes a point of saying that one can judge the level of development of any society by looking at the degree to which women have won their social emancipation in that society.

His collaborators, Frederick Engels and August Bebel, were among the first anti-capitalists to pen books specifically analyzing the history of women’s oppression. Along with Marx, they contend that a fundamental socio-economic revolution is impossible unless premised upon the complete liberation of the female half of the population (both from class exploitation and gender oppression).

Some of the first American feminists, including Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), Helen Keller, and Lucy Parsons, were themselves members of the American Socialist Party, and they all cite the works of Marx & Engels as a central contributor to the development of their understanding of women’s oppression and liberation.

In sum, I think it’s wrong to say that Marxism is “class reductionist” or ignores the question of women’s rights as something to be dealt with “after the revolution.” Certainly there have been those who have historically claimed the label “Marxist” who have been guilty of such distortions. But then again, the terms “feminism”, “democracy”, and even “human rights” have also been historically subject to distortions by many of their supposed proponents. Just as we need to struggle against those who have tried to turn “feminism” into a dirty word, I personally think the same is true of “Marxism.”

"American Labor Revolutionary: Lucy Parsons"

This article, first published at SocialistWorker.org, is a much-abridged, edited version of a longer article I had previously posted here.

==

Keith Rosenthal tells the story of a revolutionary who contributed enormously to the struggles of U.S. workers on both sides of the turn of the 20th century.

THE ASHES had hardly cooled from the house fire that killed labor radical Lucy Eldine Gonzalez Parsons in 1942 when the Chicago police raided the remains of her home, confiscating her personal library of 3,000 volumes of literature and writings on "sex, socialism and anarchy"--in the cops' words--turning it over to the FBI. This trove of revolutionary material was never again to see the light of day.

Through the six decades of her adult life, Lucy Parsons was a revolutionary, with a reputation as one of her generation's finest orators. She led workers and oppressed people in struggle, wrote widely on the questions facing anarchists and socialists, and lived a full and remarkable life.

It was no surprise that the Chicago police were anxious to bury Parsons' legacy as quickly as possible. In their own words, she was "more dangerous than a thousand rioters." For virtually the entirety of the last 40 years of her life, the police tried to bar her from making any public speeches and routinely arrested her for the "crime" of handing out revolutionary pamphlets on the street.

Lucy Parsons: "More Dangerous Than a Thousand Rioters"

By Keith Rosenthal

Also available for download as a zine/pamphlet

===

The strongest argument that can be made as to why all radical activists should study the life and works of Lucy Parsons is that the FBI wants you to know nothing about her.

Lucy Eldine Gonzalez Parsons died in 1942, at the age of 89, in a house-fire in Chicago — the city in which she lived most of her life. The ashes had hardly cooled before the Chicago police raided the remains of her home, confiscated all 3,000 volumes of literature and writings on “sex, socialism, and anarchy,” which constituted her personal library, and turned it over to the FBI. Tragically, and despite her comrades’ repeated inquiries, this treasure trove of revolutionary material was never again to see the light of day.[1]

Indeed, the Chicago police had ample reason to want to bury Parsons’ legacy as quickly as possible. In their own words, she was “more dangerous than a thousand rioters.” For virtually the entirety of the last 40 years of her life, the Chicago police tried to bar her from making any public speeches, and routinely arrested her for the ‘crime’ of handing out revolutionary pamphlets on the street. Famed labor historian Studs Terkel even noted how rare of a privilege it was to hear Parsons address a large audience in her later years, owing to the constant police harassment.

Overlooked by History

Partially because so much of her own writings were ‘disappeared’ by the government, and partially because she was a revolutionary woman of color speaking out against the injustices of a capitalist society run by white men, Lucy Parsons is one of the least known of the major figures in the history of revolutionary socialism in the U.S. Much like her long-time comrades and friends, Eugene Debs, William “Big Bill” Haywood, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Lucy Parsons made a tremendous contribution to the birth of America’s turn-of-the-century, revolutionary working-class movement; a movement which continues to this day to shape the character of class struggle and revolutionary politics in this country.

Historian Robin Kelley argues that Lucy Parsons was not only “the most prominent black woman radical of the late nineteenth century,” but was also “one of the brightest lights in the history of revolutionary socialism.”[2] Historian John McClendon writes that she is notable for being the “first black activist to associate with the revolutionary left in America.”[3]

More often than not, however, if Lucy Parsons is mentioned as an historical figure, she is noted merely as the “wife of Albert Parsons,” a man who had gained international notoriety after he was executed in 1887 by the state of Illinois for his revolutionary activities.

Unfortunately, this slight extends beyond solely ‘mainstream’ historians, including supposedly left-wing intellectuals as well. For instance, in the 1960s, the feminist editors of Radcliffe College’s three-volume work, Notable American Women, decided to leave Parsons out of their study on the grounds that she was “largely propelled by her husband’s fate” and was a “pathetic figure, living in the past and crying injustice” after her husband’s execution.[4]

Even contemporaries of Lucy Parsons, such as the popular anarchist-feminist Emma Goldman (with whom Lucy Parsons became a life-long political opponent), accused Parsons of being an otherwise unimportant opportunist who simply rode upon the cape of her husband’s martyrdom, describing her as nothing more than one of those wives of “anarchists who marry women who are millions of miles removed from their ideas.”[5]

None of this, however, is to diminish the historical importance of Albert Parsons and the events leading up to his execution; and while it is true that Lucy Parsons spent much of her life addressing the crime that was her husband’s murder at the hands of the capitalist state, nonetheless, her political activity and impact on history extend far beyond the scope of that single tragedy. In fact, the work that she lent her energies to in the years following Albert’s execution are of equal (if not greater) importance than anything he had been able to add to the fight for workers’ emancipation in the course of a life that was sadly cut short.

Resources, links, and facts regarding Marx/Engels & accusations of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc.

Marx on US slavery/civil war (racism):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/12/14.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/02/02.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/05/22.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/06/20.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/08/09.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/11/10.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1865/to-americans.htm

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_11_17.htm

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30.htm

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_10_29.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm


Marx & racism ('n-word', etc):

http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=any&num=30&btnG=Google+Search!&as_epq=nigger&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq=

(lassalle) http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_04_28.htm

http://joanofmark.blogspot.com/p/karl-marx-racist.html


Use of 'n-word' in 1860s (douglass, tubman, truth, etc):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_4_37/ai_n6075274/pg_8/?tag=content;col1

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/minstrel/miar03bt.html

http://www.yale.edu/glc/soskis/fr-5.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASoverseers.htm

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/bradford/summary.html

http://learningtogive.org/lessons/unit133/lesson2_attachments/1.html


Contemporary racists (rhodes, johnson, etc):

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_must_find_new_lands_from_which_we_can_easily/343653.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/cecil-rhodes-a-bad-man-in-africa-654195.html

http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps17.htm

xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/scartoons/car1860.html

www.perno.com/amer/docs/Defense%20of%20Slavery%20As%20a%20Benefit%20to%20Society.htm


Marx & anti-semitism

www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=10&article_id=33

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/corr-m29.shtml

http://www.marxists.de/religion/draper/marxjewq.htm

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=460&issue=119

http://www.marxists.de/religion/leon/


Marx & women's oppression

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/women/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/07/women.htm

http://links.org.au/node/934

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Paris_Commune

http://www.marxists.de/gender/cliff/03-commune.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Dmitrieff

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_05.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_07_05.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_12.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1889/letters/89_11_20.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1889/letters/89_12_07.htm


Engels on native americans:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1839/letters/39_01_20.htm


Proudhon:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/4-anarch.htm