In the time of ensuing class struggle and the push for overthrowing the oppressive bourgeoisie, many revolutionaries spoke out against the uselessness and wretchedness that they saw in the bourgeoisie in an attempt to justify the proletariat cause and carry out the Revolution. Rosa Luxemburg was one of these revolutionaries who not only spoke out against the men of the bourgeoisie, but also their women. In Luxemburg’s view, the difference between the proletariat women and the bourgeoisie women was massive in terms of their roles and impact on society. To Luxemburg, the ideal woman is the strong and independent woman of the proletariat who is equal in capability to man and also happens to be a major key in the fight against Capitalism while the woman of the bourgeoisie was the exact opposite and represents the lowest form of what women stood for in society. These two distinctions led Luxemburg to view women from these two classes as a completely different persons with almost no stated similarities by virtue of being a woman in an almost literal sense. In her view, one’s position in society was to determine what he/she was going to act and behave like throughout their lives..
In Luxemburg’s eyes, the proletarian women have the potential to leave a critical impact on the Revolution provided that they acquire their right of voice in the government. She makes the point on how Capitalism exploits the lack of rights for women such as voting in hopes of keeping its profitable practices protected. Luxemburg explains how if women were given an official voice in the government, they would threaten to bring down many exploitative capitalist activities such as militarism, taxes on food, monarchy and much more. She even states that because of the proletariat, “suffrage for women would immensely advance and intensify the proletarian class struggle.” She is explaining how, if a vast majority of proletarian women share similar outlooks on policy regarding the promotion of Social Democracy; it implies that if millions of women were suddenly to gain the right to vote, they would ultimately shift votes away from the Capitalist agenda emphasizing the power women bring to the Revolutionary table.
Not only did the women of the Proletariat hold massive potential power, but they also held a high opinion in the mind of Luxemburg. Luxemburg goes on to describe the strength of the proletariat woman. She sees these women as capable women who are able to bear the equal brunt of their male counterparts when it comes to supporting their family. She argues that the Capitalist system has pushed these women away from the homes and families they cared for in order to slave away and earn the bare wages they need to support their households, but from all this, they have gained the understanding of what struggles they need to endure in order to make a positive change in favor of improving the lives of the people andas a whole and contributing to humanity as a whole. From these descriptions, it is clear that Luxemburg holds Proletarian women in a high regard due to their societal importanceclass among the proletariat and how time has shaped these women to be more independent and equal to men due to the many daunting tasks required of them to survive in the Capitalist system. This overall description gives proletariat women a somewhat proud image, similar to a noble being capable of self sacrifice for a greater cause. The bourgeoisie women, nevertheless, are a completely different story.
Luxemburg makes it clear that the bourgeoisie womenwoman of the bourgeoisie areis an entity which is to be despised fordue to a variety of reasons. The bourgeoisie women are essentially useless contributors to society in Luxemburg’s view. She makes a notable comparison between them and parasites stating that “They are the parasites of the parasites of the social body.” The men of the bourgeoisie are already seen as parasites leeching off the fruit of the labor of the proletariat, but then there are the wives of these men who essentially live off of them hence the title of “parasites of the parasites.” Luxemburg then goes on to degrade them by recalling the death of Robespierre and how the bourgeoisie women were the naked whores who danced on the streets in celebration of the death of the fallen revolutionary hero. The bourgeoisie women were essentially a mockery of women in Luxemburg’s eye and to add salt to the wound, she declares that they have a “socially useless existence.”
With these clear distinctions Luxemburg draws between Proletariat women and Bourgeoisie women, it becomes apparent that Luxemburg’s views on women is based particularly on their class distinctions. The degrading descriptions she labels the bourgeoisie women with and the honorable description she bestows upon fellow proletariat suggests a bigger idea on how Luxemburg sees women in general. Much if this gives the implication that Luxemburg fails to see any qualifying commonalities among women who are separated by class. Throughout these comparatively short writings on women, not once does she mention significant similarities between the women of the two classes. One would assume from reading the title that it is feminist work of writing, which it certainly is, however, a common factor that is noticed in many feminist writings is that most women tend to share many qualities which would classifyqualify the document as representative of the female population. They would try to portray all women as equally oppressed and dehumanized, and as humorous as that sounds, it implies that Luxemburg diverges from conventional feminismdoesn’t see this inner feminine connection that many feminist write about when expressing the plight of women in an effort to acquire rights for women by not assuming that women are homogenous. The only thing Luxemburg seems to notice that all females have in common is that they are human and that they are also female. Aside from that, class separation is all it takes to completely separate a group of similar people according to her. This is made clear since she was able to draw more similarities between proletariat men and women than she was with bourgeoisie women.
Throughout the limited text, Luxemburg draws multiple parallels between proletariat men and women displaying how she differentiates people and their qualities more on class distinctionsrank than even gender. We see this when she talks about the many economic and similarities between proletariat men and women with their labor. She states how during her time, “…millions of proletarian women create capitalist profit like men-in factories, workshops, on farms, in home industry, offices, stores.” Another comparison she draws between the two genders is how they share the same plight. Both men and women have to slave away for capital and maintain the state, and that the women of the proletariat base most of their demands on the social abyss that separates the class of the exploited from the class of the exploiters and not in the antagonism between man and woman but the antagonism between capital and labor. She is outright stating now that not only her, but women of the proletariat in general see their primary reason for aggression in the clash between the societal classes of the bourgeoisie and proletariat and not on the basis that women were not seen as equal to men. This sets the overall basis of how her viewpoints and opinions on different members of society.
Luxemburg’s writings have made it clear that she has a fairly strong disapproval for the bourgeoisie class and even greater disliketaste for the women of that class, and has a somewhat godlikereverent view of the women of the proletariat with her praises on their laborious effort along with their self independence and the power of bringing drastic change they bring to the table due to their united beliefs and views. It was also noted that Luxemburg was one to base her primary criticism of groups of people based on their societal class. She gives societal status a greater priority over gender roles as seen when she was able to create a more intimate connection between proletarian men and women than she was able to with bourgeois women. This could raise the question about her feminist ideals in that she does not seem to take note of any basic feminine virtue that the bourgeois and the proletariat women might share. Other questions could be raised due to how short her writings are when the topic comes to women and whether she actually saw the rights of women as an immediate priority if the Revolution ever came into fruition.
Essays
Likes
1170 Views
Share: