FOREWORD
In a class-divided society, women continue to remain subservient to men. The idea of the inferiority of women has become ingrained with the process of thinking of the bourgeoisie because of the double-exploitation of women over the ages that the ruling classes have put into operation right from the time when class struggles commenced and the hunt for the acquisition and utilization of private property translated into subjection of one gender by the other even as the monogamous household emerged.
In the conflict between the genders, Karl Marx and Fredric Engels pointed out, the domination of the male emerged as an issue that was quite absent in the prehistoric times. In the changed scenario, the well-being of the man started to be drawn out of the immiserisation of the woman as capitalistic relationship developed. The woman was pushed gradually into the annals of child breeding, and carrying out of menial household duties. A kind of master-slave relationship started to build up in the household.
Tenets of Marxism and Leninism searchingly pointed to the fact that the bourgeoisie had taken away from the family its sentimental veil, and had reduced the family relationship to a mere money-relation. In the bourgeois family, the husband represents the ruling class, and the wife, the proletariat.
In our 'civilized' times, the myth of the supremacy of man over woman, biologically, genetically, and above all, socially, has found a well-carved niche in our thinking and practice, something that the bourgeoisie take for granted. The old argument bandied about in the period after the Industrial Revolution, that the employment of the wife dissolves the family, continues to find 'Justification' in the capitalist society. Vast majority of the so-called modern families continues to be based on the covert or overt domestic enslavement of the woman.
In the circumstances, right from the 19th century, in Europe, and elsewhere, a strand of movement grew the proponents of which were known as feminists, and the movement came to be termed as feminism. The innate weakness of the movement has remained its a priori aceptance of the 'inferior' place of the woman in society and then going about 'reclaiming' social parity with the male. The feminists would not go beyond the obvious and would shy away from the notion of exploitation going on in the class-divided society.
As Marxism-Leninism could well establish beyond all notions of doubt and prejudice, unless the exploitation per se could be done away with, the man-woman relationship could not be brought out of the oppressive scenario of male domination and female subjugation. Lenin pointed out that in the class struggle itself, the winning of complete freedom of women was very necessary because the proletariat itself could never hope to achieve full freedom sans the end of double-exploitation of women.
At the present point in time, the votaries of capitalism continue to believe firmly in the inferiority of women, in the household as in the work places: the glass ceiling is a reality that working women face all the time, and the shiny new offices of corporate capital, alas, are no exception to the rule. Promotion in work for women, in the final analysis, is still chained down to their gender.
In 'neo-liberalised' India under the dispensation of the BJP and its underlings of the religious right, and an insidious attempt is going on to depict women as institutionally as well as socially inferior to men. History is being rampantly distorted to 'prove' that things had always been so right from the Vedic period of history. Wide-ranging protest struggles have met the attempt.
The point to realise is that without an end to the capitalist system, the emancipation of women cannot be achieved. Towards that end, a gathering storm of struggles is being waged all-over the world to achieve the goal of an end of class exploitation. Women form very much an integral part of that struggle twice over, as women, and as the exploited. There cannot be any doubt that the emancipation of women is bound up with basic change of the social structure.
Veteran leader of the democratic women's movement, Kanak Kukherjee has written a very readable text of the inter-relationship between Marxism and women's emancipation. She has drawn prodigiously from the classics of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Commencing her exercise from the pre-historic times, she has dealt briefly and precisely with the successive stages of the transformation of society and has observed the status of women in the process of social changes. Lucidly written and containing a wealth of facts and agruments, Kanak Mukherjee's booklet would be of great use not merely to Party workers but also to the reading public in general, for it brings out the crux of the matter that is the overwhelmingly responsible factor for the status of women today, in India and elsewhere in the capitalist world.
Anil Biscoces Secretary
West Bengal State Committee
Communist Party of India (Marxist)
November, 2003
Kolkata
I
For ages the position of women in human society has been comparatively lower than that of men. The subjection of women has taken different forms in different stages of history. With the advancement of civilisation the question of woman liberation, social freedom and equal rights with man has also come to the fore. This question took precedence over all other considerations during the period of Renaissance in the 19th Century. The demand for equal rights for women has been accepted in the enlightened rationalism of Renaissance. The question of individual freedom and independent identity for women has received equal emphasis along with man's felt need for individual freedom and unimpeded self-development. So we notice in our country as well that since the time of Renaissance movement here the questions of women education, women liberation and equal legal rights for both men and women have come forward. At all time many generous men have been moved by the incidents of injustice and ill-treatment of women, social repression and their humiliation in the family and have also given efforts individually or jointly to relieve women of their sufferings. But no well-planned total attitude to the problems was developed before the 19th century. Before that it was, as a matter of fact, taken for granted that women had ever been dependent on men and would remain so for ever. So what was primary at this stage was to alleviate the sufferings of women as far as possible and to treat them kindly.
In this regard Engels has observed, "That woman was the slave of man at the commencement of society is one of the most absurd notions that have come down to us from the period of enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century."¹ Out of these prejudices developed similar social attitude. Men have come to consider themselves as superior to women, as their masters. Women also have learnt to believe that they are inferior to men and regarded themselves as their slaves. Through ages man-woman relation in society has been considered as one of master and slave and this continued through different stages of social development. The talks of women liberation could not find an entry in such a frame of unscientific mind. At the end of the class-divided age of slavery and feudalism the renaissance rationalism for the first time formally recognised women as individuals. The capitalist countries of the west recognised formally the individual rights of women. But in no capitalist country the social emancipation of women has been actually effected, nor has there been established the equal rights of men and women in the true sense of the term. Only in the middle of the nineteenth century after the discovery of Marxism Marx and Engels for the first time gave a historical and scientific explanation of the servitude of women and cited that the complete liberation of women is possible only in an exploitation-free society. Later with the establishment of Socialism in Russia after the Proletarian Revolution the social freedom and equal rights of women in the real sense were for the first time established in society. Subsequently, in China and other socialist countries women gained social freedom in the same way.
Now, socialism has been established in the one-third parts of the world. That the status of women in the socialist countries is literally different from and much better than that in other countries independent or under foreign rule, is clearly discernible. It is necessary to examine what accounts for this difference and why women libration is not possible without socialist society. These analyses can be found in the Marxist doctrine.
Marxist doctrine: Dialectical and historical materialism. The reasons behind women bondage in society and the means সা
of freeing women from this bondage all these have been historically and sceintifically analysed in pursuance of this doctrine. For all the compassion of the social reformers for the oppressed women and for all their well-intentioned attitude, there did not develop any objective and scientific attitude to women from any quarter before this Marxian doctrine. Marxism has made that possible, Marxian doctrine had come into existence in the nineteenth century when human civilisation had reached the peak in its pursuit of scientific knowledge. Lenin observed in this context:
"The Marxian doctrine is omnipotent, because it is true. It is the legitimate successor of the best that was created by humanity in the nineteenth Century in the shape of German Philosophy, English Political Economy and French Socialism."2
This omnipotent Marxian doctrine has through a historical analysis of the social position of women shown that the idea that women were dependent on men from the very beginning of human society is entirely misleading. In the prehistoric age when human society did not split into the oppressor and the oppressed, exploitation of one class by another had not yet been introduced, women enjoyed equal rights with men. Women were held in high respect. For many years matriarchal system prevailed. After that through different stages of class exploitatoins the bondage of women and their exploitation continued in different forms. Through historical analysis Marxism has shown that the system of class exploitation is at the root of women's bondage. From the time when one class of people had started economic exploitation on another class women had been relegated to the background. Removing women from the productive work in society they were made to serve men in domestic chores. And the very root of class exploitation is the introduction of private property. When man gradually got used to agricultural modes of production, the product in surplus began to pile up. And the ownership of these surplus products went into the hands of a section of male population as private property. And the people belonging to other sections began to serve these private owners as serfs. At this stage women were pushed back to the domestic work within the family under the control of men. That kind of work was not socially productive in any sense. For their livelihood women had to depend on men. As a result their fates had bocome similar to those of the people of the exploited class. Through different stages of development of the class-divided society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, those exploited class of men and all sections of women have been exploited in one form or another. And the family was formed as a nucleus of this class-based, exploitation-oriented society at all stages on the basis of private property system.
Women have to live generally in these nucleus families under the domination of men. In this way the servitude of women, their exploitation and repression are inseparably related to the system of social exploitation in general. So women liberation in absolute sense is possible only through total abolition of social exploitation. And here the question of liberation of women is inalienably related to the proletariate liberation. To get a clear idea of this we are to know how in a society human relationships are established and what is Marxian explanation about it. In the light of that Marxism analysis we shall be able to see how women came to be dominated in society and how their servitude may come to an end.
Human society is changeable. Having gone through different stages of social development human being has now attained an age of civilisation. How does this change and development take place in society? And what do we mean by human society? How are the mutual relationships between human beings determined? Marx has shown:
"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that the indispensable and the independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite state of development of their material productive forces. The sum-total of these relations of production constitutes of economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and which correspond definite forms of social consciousness."3
"The same men who establish social relation in conformity with their material productivity, produce also principles, ideas and categories in conformity with their social relations."4
In other words, the social relations between man and man depend on how wealth is produced and distributed in a society and how are people related to the means of production. It is necessary to understand clearly who are producing the wealth, who are owning them and who are in control of the means of production. With the development of the forces of production society is also advancing. And accordingly relationships between man and man are being inevitably established as the relation between the master and the slave, between the employer and the employee. This social relationship does not depend on the will of man. At the different stages of development of the factors of production the class divisions in human society have become manifest. The class characters of the exploiter and the exploited have appeared in new shapes.
And on the main foundation of the economic structure of society rises its super structure morals, ideas, literature culture politics etc. The world of man's mind is built on all this, or thus is built his attitude, outlook and all his mental habits.
This is to be understood that the man-woman relations that have been established in different stages of social development come out of this production relations between man and man.
It is to be understood why women came to be gradually subjected to men, why men through ages came to be used to this belief that this subjugation of women is but natural. Taking this domination of women by men for granted the social and familiar relationships between man and woman have been built up through centuries, their attitude to each other, their emotion, love, allegiance, sense of duty have also been formed. As man has been used to consider himself as lord, woman has also been used to consider herself as dependent on man. As if this is a matter of course and this is to continue for ever. Neither man nor woman should have to be ashamed for this. Society had accepted through ages such an unnatural relationship as natural. To know why such a state of affairs came into existence we are to come back to the same old question - human relationship is determined by the respective relations with material productivity in society.
In history we find that at the earliest stage of development of human society when there did not exist any class division between the exploiter and the exploited, matriarchal system prevailed for a considerable time. Then woman had the complete control of the social group. Human beings then lived in groups. They were not divided into small families. Class exploitation did not exist in these social groups. According to convenience work was divided among men and women. Women were dominating in society because they had the control over social production. Women had domination over agricultural work. It is the women-folks who managed and maintained the agricultural activities. Male folks had been engaged in hunting in the forest. At the initial stage of agricultural activities this was the division of labour between man and woman. "History teaches us that the class or social group which plays the principal role in social production and performs the main function in production must, in the course of time, inevitably take control of that production. There was a time, under the matriarchate, when women were regarded as the controllers of production. Why was this? Because under the kind of production then prevailing, primitive agriculture, women played the principal role in production, they performed the main functions, while men roamed the forest in quest of game. Then came the time, under the patriarchate, when the predominant position in production passed to men. Why did this change take place? Because under the kind of production prevailing at that time, stock-breeding, in which the principal instruments of production were the spear, the lasso and the bow and arrow, the principal role was played by men."5
Through the social division of labour there gradually grew differences between man and man. Class-based society came into existence. Classes of the master and the slave, the exploiter and the exploited were created. During the age of animal-farming the ownership of the stocks gradually passed from the clan to the individual owner. No historical account as to the details of when exactly this transfer took place is available. Individual ownership of the stocks and the hunting instruments began to establish gradually. Whatever wealth and things of daily use came to be produced in society passed gradually into the hands of men. Women were only entitled to what they needed for their consumption. But they did not have any right over that portion even. Thus male dominated society gradually developed. Then with the increase of wealth in society and the passing of it into the hands of man, his importance in society grew more and more with the co-ncomitant lowering of woman's status. Earlier in the matriarchate the laws of heredity were in accordance with the matriarchal rules. Now as the property passed on to the hands of the male sex hereditary rights were required to be changed. So matriarchal rules were abolished. With the abolition of the matriarchate a revolution was completed in society. "For this revolution one of the most decisive ever experienced by mankind need not have disturbed one single living member of a gens...... The overthrow of mother right was the world historic defeat of the female sex. The man seized the reins in the house also, the woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man's lust, a mere instrument for breeding children....."6
So the idea that woman had ever been under the control of man is wrong. At one time rights of men over the social wealth were established and the system of private ownership was introduced. Since that time female sex came to be dominated by the male and ultimately she had to be degenerated into the private property of man. The worst consequence of this degradation of woman is witnessed in the class-divided society when female body is used as a marketable commodity gradually. Woman took up prostitution as a profession, that is to say, many women began to earn their livelihood by selling their bodies. Can there be worse degradation for woman?
II
Thus with the economic dependence of woman started the lowering of her status in society and in family. Male domination was established in society. Gradually the master-slave relation between man and woman went deep into social psyche. Being deprived of the role in social production her social life also narrowed. Women came to be deprived of acquiring knowledge, education and culture, freedom of work and thought. Illiteracy, ignorance, prejudices superstitions etc gradually relegated them to the insignificant position in society. A section of men turned out to be the sole arbiters of the morals, the behaviours and the modes of living in society. In a society the basic norm of which is exploitation by one class of another, the attitudes of the people, the norms the behaviour and the values were regulated in favour of the exploiting class. Social attitude to women also changed. They began to be looked upon as inferior to men. In the families women began to be practically treated as the private property of men. The services rendered by the slave-like women were intended to bring happiness and comfort to men. And it came to be the responsibility of men to provide livelihood for women. In this way the mutual relations of man and woman in society came to be very like the relation between the master and the slave. The in-built contradiction in an exploitation based society had its reflection on the family as well as on the conjugal life. Women did not only lose their economic independence, they lost their self respect also and were degraded into a deplorable state.
Now let us see how the status of woman in society lowered step by step. And in order to have a clear idea about it it is necessary to examine how in the course of social development family concept evolved and how also the mutual relations of man and woman changed.
Engels in his 'Origin of Family, Private Property and the State' has pointed out the three major periods of social development. These are: (a) Savagery, (b) Barbarism and (c) Civilisatiion. Out of these, the first two periods again are sub-divided into the lower, middle and the higher pł ases according to different stages of development in food production. This is because the different stages of human development have been ascertained on the basis of the modes of production of foodstuff and of the distribution system prevalent at a particular stage. At the lower stage of barbarism human race were in their childhood. They lived on the edible fruits and roots available in the forest. Their main struggle was against the wild animals. The middle stage of this period started when man learnt the use of fire and the higher stage of barbarism began with the discovery of bows and arrows. From the very beginning of the age of barbarism man started living in hamlets. Man learnt the art of stock raising, stock-breeding and agriculture at the initial stage of the age of barbarism. Coming to the middle period of this age suitable places were found out for stock-raising and building up farmstead and the farmers, vocation began. Cultivation of land for breeding crops was felt to be necessary from this period for feeding the animals and for feeding themselves. At the higher stage in the age of barbarism the cultivation of land with bullocks and the ploughs with iron blades started. From this stage the age of civilisation commenced. In this age man on his own learnt to increase the natural wealth and acquired the knowledge of industry and arts.
It is now to be seen how the family system evolved through these different stages of social development. Then we shall be able to get a clear idea about the development of relation between man and woman and particularly about the development of sexual relations between them. Morgan said, "The family represents an active principle. It is never stationary but advances from a lower to a higher form as society advances from a lower to a higher condition."7
When in the primitive age man was just coming out of the stage of animality he began to lose the strength necessary for self protection. So they started to live in groups. At this stage sexual relation between man and woman was free. That is to say in the primitive age of human society indiscriminate sexual relations among the poeple of a group were permissible. There every man had equal right to get every woman and similarly any woman had equal right on any man.
The history of man reveals that in the primitive society there existed a custom of group marriage. Under this custom each man in a group had conjugal relation with any woman of the same group. In such family group malice did not exist among people. At a later stage it was also seen that a woman had several husbands. Malice had no place there. In the primitive age sexual relations among men and women were simple and uninhibited. Later several complications developed in the group-marriage system.
In this primitive age the members of a whole tribe formed a family having no-holds-barred sexual relations among the male and female members. Afterwards, the area of the family began to shrink. In the process of eliminating the members of the race, the relatives from sexual contact there came a stage when group marriage system became extinct. At last sexual relations came to be confined to each pair of man and woman only. The custom of pairing family was introduced. At the initial stage after the introduction of pairing family system women were easily available to men, rather one man could get many women. But then there was a scarcity of woman. So from the beginning of pairing family system the stealing and selling of women could be seen. It needs to be mentioned here that what we call personal or independent love did not have much to bear on this pairing-family system or on the system of monogamy that came into vogue subsequently. And the system of pairing-family was so week and unstable that no need was felt then to set up an establishment independently. So this custom could not at all abolish the earlier system of group family. Woman was dominating in the group-family because a child would have been known after its mothers. It was difficult to identity the father of the child as the woman had many husbands. But the identify of the mother was clear. Women had the domination in these societies. They had the authority in social production. Hereditary rights were also determined along the matriarchal line.
So the idea prevalent in modern society that women were ever dependent on men because of their feeble structure is entirely misleading. History proves it. In all the stages of the age of savagery and in the lower and middle period of the age of barbarism and also in the higher period of that age women were not only independent but also they held a very high position in society. In the group family most of the women or all women belonged to the same tribe and men used to come from different tribes. This was the objective condition of woman's supremacy under the system. Matriarchate remained stable within the single tribe and therefore women enjoyed the authority of the family and control over its production system. In the ages of savagery and barbarism women had to bear the brunt of all work. They were held in great respect as well. Now it is clearly seen that the division of labour between man and woman has not been made in 'accordance with woman's social status. And the notion which is prevailing in feudal-capitalist society that those giving manual labour are socially less dignified is also wrong. It has no scientific basis. The upper class women in the bourgeois class, who have no work to perform are known to have greater social dignity. Women belonging to the rich zamindar or royal families are always encircled with servants and maids doing no house-hold job what so ever, not even the rearing up of their own children. They leave the entire household work to the paid servants and maids. They have practically no role in social productivity. In fact they live the lives of a kind of parasites. They are hailed in the society of so called civilised men as 'Ladies'. They remain soaked in the flatteries of men and in the real sense they become dancing dolls at the hands of men, objects of their lust and enjoyment. Actually from the point of view of dignity they occupy much lower place in comparison with those industrious women of the age of barbarism. The male-folks of the barbaric age considered their women as ladies in the literal sense of the term and the women in their turm merited this high honour.
"The social status of the lady of civilization surrounded by sham homage and estranged from all real work, is socially infinitely lower than that of the hard-working woman of barbarism, who was regarded among the people as a real lady, (Lady Frowa, Frau-Mistress [Harrin]) and was such by the nature of her position" 8
After this age came the age of civilization. The main feature of this age is monogamy. So it has been seen that in different stages of social development the mutual relations between persons and the sexual relations between man and woman have been different. In the primitive period of the prehistoric time the sex between man and woman was free. In the age of savagery there was group-marriage system, in the age of barbarism pairing marriage system came in vogue, and in the age of civilization the system of monogamy was introduced.
We are now to examine how the change from free sexual relation to the monogamy system took place.
There is a general notion that primitive people were savage, so they had polygamy, and men have monogamy now because they have been civilised. Things were not that easy. The introduction of monogamy certainly masked the advancement of human civilization. But if we take a close look we shall see that monogany has been introduced through certain contradiction between man and woman. The introduction of monogamy is the result of subjection and extreme humiliation of woman as a class. It has been stated earlier that in order to understand how the position of woman in society has been changing we are to apply the analytical system of the historical dialectial materialism. Every stage of social dvelopment has passed through the dialectics. Similarly, the sexual relation between man and woman and marriage system have also been changing through one or other dialectical process.
At the end of the matriarchal system the male domination was established and the result of it became visible in the male dominated family. And from the very beginning of agricultural method family system has been intimately connected with it.
The contradictions which came to be widely manifest in society and the state at a later period were all seen primarily in all these family systems. With the male dominated family system that came into existence after the abolition of matriarchal system we enter the period of written history. Monogamy was introduced at a stage when society passed from the middle stage to higher stage of the age of barbarism. A new thing appeared in this pairing family. As at a given time sexual relation existed between a pair of man and woman natural fatherhood and motherhood of a child could be as-certained. Needless to say that the ties of the pair family were rather loose and separations between them were easy and frequent. According to the division of labour within the family the male-member had to collect food and also make instruments necessary for procuring food. Male member was the owner of those instruments'. Female member had the ownership of household goods. So when there is a separation between husband and wife. Man took away all the instruments and woman retained the household goods. The new modes of food collection in that age the animal stock and the new form of labour the slaves were owned by the male member. But for the hereditary laws remaining on the matriarchal line the offsprings could not inherit their father's property. The people of the clan to which the deceased had belonged would get that property. And his ofsprings belonged to mother's clan. It is here that the contradiction started. Chaotic confusion started from various quarters of society. As social wealth grew the status of man rose. It was felt that hereditary rights need be changed so that the offsprings of man can inherit his property. A new social order is again established through the introduction of patriarchal system. Marx has also observed, "This appears altogether to be the most natural transition'. So with the abolition of matriarchate, what Engels has described as 'world historic defeat of the female sex', a new social system was established through a dialectical process. But the new relationship between man and woman as master and slave gave rise to a new contradiction. When man obtained complete control over the production system and over the family it became necessary for him to gain control over woman as well. In the pairing family the marriage ties were rather loose. Man or woman could break the marriage at their will. After the introduction of patriarchate the new rules of heredity entitled the offsprings to the paternal property. This necessitated that the parenthood of the offsprings should be undisputed. In other words, it became neccessary to introduce strict sexual laws for woman so that a woman could not have sex with more than one person. It is from this that the monogamy system evolved. It became laws that hence forth man alone could break the marriage and divorce his wife. For man sexual contact with woman other than his wife was permissible in society. He could enjoy illicit sexual contact with any number of women. But for woman neither devorce nor sexual contact with anyone other than her husband was permissible. This is the real meaning of the so-called monogamy. Monogamy was as a matter of fact, applicable to woman alone and not to man. Servitude of woman, her total surrender to and complete dependence on man was institutionalised through the introduction of monogamy. The histroy of the most civilised and developed nations of the age illustrates the truth of it. Actually the system of monogamy did not develop out of individual passion or love. It was introduced to ensure man's right to property and his authority over woman. This system was not the result of man and woman's personal attraction for each other or their longing for being united permanently monogamy rather revealed the inner contradiction between man and woman the contradiction which did not exist in the primitive age when private ownership was unknown. But again the introduction of the system of monogamy also marked the social advancement and heralded the age of civilisation. Needless to say that monogamy is the most developed system of marriage, but that should be the monogamy in the real sense, that is to say, the system should have equal application in case of both man and woman. It is through establishment of equal rights for man and woman that monogamy could ensure highest form of conjugal life. But this did not happen at the initial stage of the introduction of this system. The system was one-sided. It was introduced in order to dominate over woman to subdue her. Engels observes in this context:
'The monogamian Family its final victory being one of the signs of the beginning of civilisation....
It is based on the supremacy of man. It was not in anyway the fruit of individual sex love with which it had absolutely nothing in common, for the marriages remained marriages of convenience as before thus monogamy does not by any means make its appearance in history as the reconciliation of man and woman; still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. On the contrary, it appears as the subjection of one sex by the other, as the proclamation of a conflict between sexes entirely unknown hitherto in prehestoric times. "10
Engels' analysis reveals that the contradiction between sexes started with the introduction of monogamy exactly at a period when class struggle and exploitation of classes started in human society. Man began to exploit woman right from this time also. Subjugation of woman and repression are historically linked wtih the creation of class-based society and the beginning of class exploitation. The analysis given in the Marxian doctrime highlighted the same truth that complete emancipation of woman as a class is not possible until exploitation of classes ends. In the feudal and capitalist society social exploitation of woman can never end class exploitation and can end only in socialistic pattern of society. So with the establishment of socialist pattern of society (which has been described as the first step to communism) total emancipation of woman can be made possible. So here the question of the liberation of the Proletariate is closely linked with that of woman liberation.
Engels writes about monogamy system: "In an old unpublished manuscript the work of Marx and myself in 1846 I find the following: 'The first division of labour is that between man and woman for child bearing'. And to-day I can add: "The first class antagonism which appears in history coincides with the devlopment of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage and the first class oppression with that of the female sex by the male Monogamy was a great historical advance, but at the same time it inaugurated along with slavery and private wealth that epoch, lasting until to-day, in which every advance is likewise a relative regression, in which the well-being and development of the one group attained by the misery and repression of the other. It is the cellular form of civilized society, in which we can already study the nature of the antagonisms and contradictions which develop fully in the later." 11
So it is now clear that the antagonism among the classes which started with the private property and slavery began to manifest itself in another form at a later stage of social development. It appears in the analysis of the dialectical materialism that no full-proof system can be devised till date.
The attempt to do one good turn brings in its wake something that is evil. With the monogamial system society both advanced and regressed. Monogamy apparently established order in society, but woman slavery began from this period. Through the gaps in the system prostitution began to flourish. Monogamy is on the one hand and hetaerism on the other, and another extreme form of it. The flourishing trade of prostitution led to new form of antagonism in society. Wife's paramour and the licentious husband came to co-exist with the system of monogamy. Within the system of this male-dominated monogamy restriction on and respression of women went on unabated leaving no scope for expression of higher form of conjugal love between man and wife. Man became the omnipotent lord and woman the slave at his feet, absolutely dependent on him. With the economic dependence of woman her bondage became complete and absolute. Psychologically also she prepared herself as a maid while man began to think of himself as the lord. Needless to say, no free and beautiful love is possible in this state. This kind of higher form of love can only grow in a society of people who are selfless and openhearted, in a society where all are equal.
When private-ownership was established in society, monogamy developed from pairing family system. In the pairing family system many families lived under one group.
Some clan within the group again dominated. Generally women were in control of these group families. Foodstuff and other articles of use were stocked in common store. The work that women had to do in the family was considered socially important. Out of pairing family monogamic family developed. Group family system was replaced by private family system. Private property, monogamy, private family are complementary. So with the monogamic system came the private family and those private families became the economic unit of society. When women were engaged in domestic work of these private families under the control of men they lost their importance because their work did not have any social value. Daily household work turned woman into slave under men. This type of work did not have any monetary value, nor did it come under the division of labour. It fell to the lot of private slaves to the state of which wives were degnerated. Man became the lord of the household and at the same time it became his responsibility to maintain the whole family. Women were removed from the activities in social production. They were doomed to lead lives within the four walls of the kitchen and the maternity room alternately. They were deprived of the outside world, of education, culture, and of all avenues leading to the development of mind. All social activities relating to development of ideas, thoughts and philosophies were directed to favour the interest of male-sex, now the lord of the new social system having the whole women community as their slaves. So called self mortification, self-sacrifice and chastity of woman came to be glorified in society and woman gradually got used to her new state of slavery and even began to have a sense of 'pride' for that woman's servitude to man and the servitude of the poor to the rich started at the same period. With this changed man's sense of values, concepts and ideas. Thus with the change of economic infrastructure of society changed its superstructure. In a class divided society all the ideas and concepts, feelings and emotions, hopes and aspirations grew keeping in view the interest of the exploiting class.
"Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of the material existence in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class" 12
III
From the very beginning of the establishment of private property and class exploitation down to the present days various types of exploitation at various stages of social production and distribution are continuing in human society And the state is evolved out of this class struggle. It is through the state that the ruling class dominated over their opponents. The state at all stages of social development has carried out its functions always in the interest of the ruling class. So a class divided society at different stages the state instead of working for women liberation kept up the system of exploitation. At different phases of exploitation such as slavery serfdom wage labour, women also have been exploited in different ways. Slavery is the earliest phase of exploitation. Defeated, landless group of people were engaged as slaves by the landowners and by other property owners. Since then human being gradually degenerated into marketable commodity. In the Middle ages slavery changed into serfdom. Then in the Modern age they became wage labours. At these different stages of civilization exploitation of women went on in different ways..
"The form of the family corresponding to civilization and under it becoming the definitely prevailing form is monogamy, the supremacy of the man over the woman, and the individual family as the economic unit of society. The cohesive force of civilized society is the state, which in all typical periods is exclusively the state of the ruling class, and in all cases remains essentially a machine for keeping down the oppresed, the exploited class" 13
Coming to the modern age of capitalism we notice a significant change in the state of women. After the Industrial Revolution in England and with the setting up of large factories there and in other countries a large section of women, mostly from among the poor, joined these factories as workers. Since then women gained again the opportunity to participate in the social production. This change opened up avenues for the social emancipation of women. In the capitalist society women from the proletariat class, mainly, started joining in factory work. A sizeable section of women in this way were freed from the bondage within the family. The value of their work gained social recognition. Having earned their livelihood themselves they moved towards economic freedom. But here again another form of contradiction developed as the capitalistic system of production brought back a section of the class of women into the fold of social production. Thus opening for them the road to freedom, it led actually to the breaking of the labour families. For when the women from the families of the labour class came to join the factories no alternative arrangement for looking after their household work and for rearing up of the children could be made. Women and child labours were very cheap. So they became subject to inhuman oppression and exploitation. Karl Marx in his 'Capital' writes about this, "In England women are still occasionally used instead of horses for hauling canal boats, because the labour required to produce horses and machines is an accurately known quantity while that rquired to maintain the women of the surplus population is below all calculation"14.
Marx in his 'Capital' has elaborately shown how women and little children were exploited ruthlessly. He also has shown that because of this kind of exploitation of child and women labour the economic foundation of the family broke down.
["The force of facts, however compelled it at last to acknowledge that modern industry in overturning the economic foundation on which was based the traditional family, and the family labour corresponding to it, had also unloosened all traditional family ties'.]15
Engels writes after analysing the condition of the labour in the first half of the nineteenth century England, "The templyoment of the wife dissolves the family uttlerly and of necessity, and this dissolution, in our present society, which is based upon the family, brings the most demoralising consequences for parents, as well as children......."16
But despite the inhuman torture and exploitation of the poor women and children, it is this new form of employment that enabled women to come out of the narrow precincts of the domestic world into the open world of social production. Young persons also came forward to earn independently. As a result, it created the very economic basis for higher form of family and man and woman relations. Marx observes, 'However terrible and disgusting the dissolutions, under the capitalist system, of the old family ties may appear, nevertheless modern industry by assigning as it does an important part in the process of production outside the domestic sphere, to women, to young persons and to children of both sexes, creates a new economic foundation for a higher form of the family and of the relations between the sexes."17
With the abolition of the matriarchal system started the dependence of women on men. Subsequent establisment of private property, monogamy and individual family life completed her total subjugation. Removing women from the activities of social production men made them slaves in their family. Engels has shwon, "The modern individual family is based on the open or disguised domestic enslavement of the women..... that the first premise for the emancipation of the womwn is the reintroduction of the entire female sex in to public industry and that this again demands that the quality possessed by the individual family of being the economic unit of society be abolished."18
We come to see that with the development of the capitalistic social system started the age of the Bourgeois Renaissance. Different branches of knowledge including science began to advance in different countries, Education and culture assumed new forms. Stereotyped, static, conservative feudal social system of the medieval age began to grumble down. New rationalism made its appearance. New thinking of bourgeois democracy gave recognition to individual freedom. Such an internationally significant event as the French Revolution spread the new revolutionary thoughts all over the world. Slavery and serfdom were rejected in the civilized world. This is a new kind of the age of reason and humanism. The advancement of scientific knowledge dealt a severe blow to all kinds of fanaticism. Scientific rationlism threw challenge to religion and superstition. During nineteenth century Renaissance the labouring class also gained a sort of freedom. They were no longer tied to their masters as slaves or serfs, they were accepted as free individuals. In Bourgeois law they were granted formal recognition of equal rights as human beings. But a new contradiction also developed here. As the labouring class was free to accept or resign any job, the masters also had right to employ or not to employ the labours. If a labour was illegally sacked he had the formal right to file suit against the owner. But the proletariat labour class did not have money enough to fight against the factory owners. So through the loophole of law new form of exploitation of this oppresed class opened in the capitalist system. So whatever security a serf used to enjoy in the feudal age was denied to the labour in this period. The labours became formally free from social restrictions, the employees also were free from any liabilities. Thus in a class divided society one-step advancement at one stage brings in one step regress. Thus new contradictions have been appearing in society. Exploitation in one form or another continues through stages of social development.
In the capitalist society the conditions of women became equally full of contradiction. In the capitalist countries equal rights for women were formally recognised under the bourgeois law. So the bourgeois began to preach, 'We have given the women freedom, equal rights, and also right to work'. It is true that this recognition, though formal was doubtless a great advancement. We saw that recognition enabled the women class to come out of home, to get the light of education. Not only women of the labour class but also those belonging to the middle and upper classes took employment for earning.
In other words a section of women from all social strata began to take part in social production. Although, needless to say, only an insignificant portion of women in the capitalist society got the opportunity for earning. A sizeable section of female sex remained busy with domestic work in the family like the women in the old feudal system. For want of real economic independence it did not become possible for them to avail themselves of the legal rights, For this, oppression of women became more naked. Under the bourgeois system for man and woman equal marital rights were formally granted. Both the sexes have the right to get engaged for marriage and to obtain a divorce when necessity arises. But the female sex because of their economic dependence could not avail the benefit of this legal right. Just as the employer and the labour could enter freely in to an agreement, but if the employer breached agreement the lobour could not fight for it for want of means, similarly women could not get the benefit of the legal rights because the objective conditions were unfavourable for them. Men being the sole breadwinner enjoyed supremacy in the family. Engels observes in this context:
"To-day in the great majority of cases the man has to be the earner, the bread-winner of the family, at least among the propertied classes, and this gives him a dominating position which requires no special legal privileges. In the family, he is the bourgeois, the wife represents the proletariat". 19
In this capitalist system, thus despite having equal legal right women could not avail those and their oppression becomes all the more severe. This betrays the deceitfulness of the bourgeois. They do not perform what they promise. They boast of their legal system, their familial and social systems.
They put the blame on the communist for breaking the family ties and inciting women to come out of their homes. The fact is just the opposite. In the capitalist system human beings are used as commodities, their learning, intelligence and wisdom all are turned into commodities.' All social relations are changed into monetary transactions. In the Bourgeois system also the familial ties of love and affection disappear in the same manner.
"The bourgeois has taken away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation".20
Marx-Engels in their 'Communist Manifesto' have in this context observed.
"But you communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women..... our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common" 21
So it betrays the hollowness of the bourgeois claims regarding monogamy and individual family system. In the historical analysis of the Marxist it is also revealed women will not have the equal rights until they are fully engaged in social production. Again if women come out for work domestic work and child rearing will suffer. This will shake the very foundation of the modern family system. For such family rests entirely on the foundation of women slavery. With the advancement of civilization in the present age monogamy system has greatly improved, but women slavery has not been removed. That is why Marx and Engels have f pinted out that after the abolition of capitalist system some of the characteristics of the present monogamy system will disappear. If man and woman both participate in social production, if their conjugal relation becomes absolutely free, if women become free from economic servitude, then man woman relation will cease to be one of master and slave. Then what form will the families of the future days take? In this respect Engels has quoted Morgan saying.
"When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now a fiftih, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creation of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monagamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor."22
IV
In modern capitalist society it is seen that the traditional norms of the monogamic system have improved considerably, but female sex remained largely dependent. Not only that, the exploiation of women along with the proletariat in the class-divided society went on increasing. In this society exploitaion of women has doubled since as part of the proletariat they are being deprived along with their male partners of all the benefits that society can offer. They are further exploited by their male partners within the family. Thus being the victims through ages of double oppression women have in most cases to carry on the lives of the beasts of burden within the family, being shorn of all the opportunities of developing their personalities and abilities. They have been used to think of themselves as under the control of men and as inferior beings. In the society of women the feudalistic ideas and beliefs, religious superstition have struck deep root. In order to keep women under subjugation a suitable economic infrastructure has been created in the society and the superstructure of civilisation and culture has been built up accordingly. So the position of woman has been degraded in the society in the same manner as their place in the minds of people has been downgraded. Naturally, men have felt pity for women but not love and respect. No individual is to be blamed for this, this only reflects the objective condition. The inequality and the widening gulf created between man and woman in the class divided society has struck deep root into man's mind, into his feeling and emotion, into the family and the society, its civilisation and culture over the ages. Even in poetry and literature paeans have been sung to glorify woman's obedience and man's authority. These stereotyped ideas again indirectly help to keep up woman's degraded state. Within the capitalist society we see how women under in the guise of equality of rights are being oppressed under bourgeois civilisation. Some of the upper class ladies are made heroines, some individual women who have made some mark in the field of education and culture are cited as illustration of feminine progress, as showing how free and able women are in society. This is one side of the picture. Another side reveals the tremendous suffering, humiliation, deprivation among wide section of women belonging to the families of the workers and the peasants as well as to the families of the Middle Class, it reveals the gradual spread of prostitution. The Capitalist state and the government outwardly spoke against all this and opposed prostitution formally, but indirectly helped to organise this despicable institution. As the capitalistic system advances huge wealth is piled up in the hands of the captalist and poverty, unemployment, starvation keep on growing under the very grandeur of the accumulated riches. Poverty and unemployment in their turn lead to moral digradation at a dangerous rate. Such things happen because of the in-built contradiction in the capitalist system. This is what Engels has pointed out and what has been mentioned earlier as the necessary consequence of the ipitroduction of private property, slavery and monogamy which rnarked both an advancement in the social development as well as a retrogression. This is the result of the antagonism between the classes. In a class divided society women are being exploited along with the exploited class. Marx has also referred to this fact by saying that class antagonisn and class exploitation are historically related with exploitaton of women. So the question of liberation of the proletariat is inseparably connected with that of the emancipation of women. Marx and Engels have shown that the aboliion of the private ownership of the capital will end class exploitation and consequently exploitation of women. Abolition of the capitalistic system and establishment of socialism through the revolution of the proletariat will make the real and absolute emancipation of women possible.
We witnessed for the first time in Russia after the November Revolution in 1917 and with the establishment of socialism the real face of absolute emancipation of women from social exploitation. From the very beginning Lenin linked the question of the freedom of the proletariat with that of the freedom of women. Stalin Points out Lenin's contribution saying, 'Leninism is the further development of Marxism.Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution' 23. That socialism was established in Russia after the successful Revolution under the leadership of Lenin is a testimony to the veracity of Stalin's analysis. The Scientific truth that Marx and Engels discovered was ably applied by Stalin to the actual world. Marx and Engels through historical and scientific analysis have shown that freedom of women could not be realised until human society is freed from exploitation. And the first condition for the emancipation of woman is that she should be brought out of the narrow limit of the domestic work and engaged widely in the activities of social production. This theory did have the actual application in Russian Revolution under Lenin's ledership. At the very outset of organising the Revolution in Russia Lenin told the working class and other revolutionary people that it was the duty of the working class to organise widely women and to bring them into the revolutionary work. Lenin declared, the proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom unless it achieves complete freedom for women' 24.
Lenin revealed the heinous deception carried out particularly in capitalsist society by way of oppression and exploitation of women within the marital, famlial and social, lives, in the name of social equality and of equal rights for men and women. Following the clue of Marx and Engels Lenin in his book, The Development of Capitalism in Russia' showed how milk owners exploited the labour of the peasant woman, how the big buisiness men exploited the women engaged in sewing work, how with the opening of big industries exploitation of women multiplied doubly. On the one hand and how, on the other hand, their coming into the work of social production opened up the road to their emancipation by making them join the proletarian struggle.
When in exile Lenin drafted the Party Programme he talked of absolute equality of woman with man. Lenin's wife writes, "In 1913 while Lenin was analysing the different characteristics of Bourgeois democracy and revealing the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie he discussed also the problems of women prostitution. He has shown how the bourgeois encouraged the trade with the female sex, how they raped the helpless young girls of the Colonial Countries, and at the same time pretend that they were combating prostitution."
Lenin said, "If we do not draw women into public activity, into the militia, into political life, if we do not tear women away from the deadening atmosphere of household and kitchen, then it is impossible to secure real freedom, it is impossible even to build democracry, let along socialism"25.
Thus Lenin attached importance to the question of women liberation linking it with that of the Proletarian Revolution.
We come to see after the establishment of socialism and Proletarian dictatorship in Post Revolutionary Russia that women have gained equal rights in the real sense. With the abolition of private control of the capital, freedom of the workers women has been achieved. Now men and women both have equally participated in the activities of social production. With the change of economic structure in society, class antagonism also has ended. Socialism is the first stage of Communism. At this stage of Socialism the basis for the freedom of both the Proletariat and the Woman is created.
When social control of wealth is established by replacing the private control the support base of class exploitation breaks, the state structure also changes. At last when the last vestiges of class antagonism will disappear, the freedom of the Proletariate and that of woman as a class will be complete and permanent. With the establishment of socialism the civilised society based on class exploitation will end.
"Since the exploitation of one class by another is the basis of civilisation its whole development moves in a continuous contradiction. Every advance in production is at the same time a retrogression in the condition of the oppressed class that is of the great majority. What is a boon for one is necessarily a bane for the other, each new emancipation of one class always means a new oppression of another class". 26.
In the socialistic mode of production there exists no class antagonism. Here man's personal interest and the interest of the society merge. The abolition of private property has its impact on the individual families. Both man and woman being economically free and self-supporting, their conjugal relation and their relations with their offsprings and relatives may be based on higher humanitarian principles rather than on petty money matters. And being economically free women can avail themselves of the legal and other social rights. In other words, the objective ground of equal rights between man and woman is established in this new social order. For this we have seen that all social exploitation of woman ends in Russia with the transfer of power to the hands of the working class after the November Revolution. When equal economic and social rights of women were actually established in Soviet Russia instead of having only formal recognition in the Soviet Constituion, such social evils as humiliating institution of marriage, prostitution etc, were eradicated. Lenin declared in 1919,
"Take the position of women. Not a single democratic country in the world, not even in the most a hundredth Bourgeois Republic, has done in tens of year a hunderdth part of what we did in the very first year we were in power."27
Lenin has shown that although the first condition of women-liberation is to engage them in social production, this alone will not ensure their freedom, from servitude in the family. Women have also to be freed from the drudgery of domestic chores. So he said.
'The real emancipation of women, real communism, will begin only when, a mass struggle (led by the proletariat which is in power) is started against this petty domestic economy, or rather when it is transformed on a mass scale into large scale socialist economy"28.
So Lenin called the Soviet Community Kitchen, Creches for children and the Schools for children 'Young Shoots of Communism', because through these institutions the household works of women are brought under the social responsibility and thus women are really freed from familial bondage. In this way to give absolute freedom to women they need be brought under the activities of social production and at the same time their small household chores be made parts of social production. We quote here what Engels says in this context.
"The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree. And this has become possible only as a result of modern large-scale industry, which not only permits of the participation of women in production in large numbers, but actually calls for it, and moreover, strives to convert private domestic work also into a public industry. "29
In this manner the freedom of the oppressed women has become a reality in China and other socialist countries. With the change of real economic foundation of the society superstructure has changed, and social consciousness has also undergone change. In all spheres of social and familial set up lives of men and women are built on actual principles of equal rights, with full dignity and respect. The conjugal life of man and woman has been freed from economic dependence, change of thought, feelings, ideas and emotions of exploitation-free society effected equal change in their mental world. To get rid of the age-old habits of men's domination on women and women's servility to men active efforts, higher form of social consciousness free from narrow self-interest and education in the philosophy of socialism are needed. It is difficult to get rid of the ideas that have struck deep root over the ages. So even after the November Revoulation Lenin felt the need of educating people for changing their old discriminatory attitude to women. In all his writings, activities and teachings Lenin has highlighted this aspect of women freedom with great comparsion. Thus the truth of the observation in the Marxian doctrine regarding women's position in society and their liberation, has been established for the first time in Soviet Russia under the leadership of Lenin. Following this path women have been freed form oppression in Soviet Russia and other Socialist Countries and emancipation of women will come some day in all the countries of the world along with the freedom of the proletariat. Lenin has made the same prediction in his 1918 International Working Women's Day's valedictory address,
On International Working Women's Day, in all countries in the world at innumerable meetings of working women greetings will be sent to Soviet Russia, which has started on unprecedentally defficult and arduous, but great, universally great and really liberating work.
The ice had broken in all parts of the world.
The emancipation of the peoples from the yoke of imperialism, the emancipation of the workers, men and women, from the yoke of capital, is moving irresistibly forward. This cause is being advanced by scores and hundreds of millions of working men and women and peasant men and women. That is why the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital will be achieved the world over.”30
'The ice has broken in all the parts of the world' - Lenin said this after his experience of the Socialist Revolution in Russia. Since then long seven decades have elapsed. Twentieth century is approaching its end. Meanwhile great changes have come in the history of the world. After the world war-II socialism has been established in the largest country of the world and in other countries. To-day in the one-third part of the world women have gained equal rights with men. The world history is now tending towards socialism. Ideals of socialism have exerted influence on the people of the independent countries as well as the countries under the foreign rule in the world. The superiority of the socialist pattern of society over the feudal and capitalist form of society has been proved in many cases in matters of human relations. In the socialist pattern exploitation has ended, the real basis for equality between man and woman has been established. Women have participated in large number in the social production. The way to social liberation of women has opened.
Women in the socialist countries having obtained equal rights in social, economic and the political field, have been making great advance. The basic difference between the position women enjoy in the socialist countries and the position of women in the imperialist countries as well as in the feudal and the capitalist countries has become more manitfest now a days. Women liberation movement has been going on in all these countries. Everyone is talking about the equal rights of women. In our country, India. some laws have also been passed to protect women rights. Certain legislations have been introduced for establisting the dignity of women and for putting an end to women oppression. But the condition of women has not basically changed. The 1975-85 decade was declared by the united Nations as the Women's Decade. Many movements, discussions, debates concerning the question of women liberation and that of women rights were carried on all over this decade. But in spite of all this, the basic difference between the position of women in the socialist countries and that in the other countries has remained unaltered. From the experience of the democratic movement of the people in the progressive camp it becomes apparent that women liberation question is intimately related with the question of the total change of the social structure. The struggle for women's freedom is inextricably related to the struggle for ending social exploitation and for abolition of exploitative society. It is not possible to get an idea of the true perspective of women liberation movement, its objective and its activities unless one has a clear grasp of the ideas and consciousness of social revolution. The problem of emancipation of women is to be viewed from the class angle, to look at it as a part of class struggle. This is the teaching of Marxism.
June, 1975
Translated from Bengali Booklet 'Marxbad O Nari Mukti' 1975. International Women's Year.]
Notes
(1) Engels: Origin of the Family, Private Property and the state
(2) Lenin: Vol I
(3) Marx: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
(4) Marx: The Poverty of Philosophy
(5) Stalin: Anarchism or Socialism?
(6)-(11) Engles: ibid
(12) Marx & Engle: Communist Manifesto
(13) Engles: ibid
(14)-(15) Marx: Capital-Vol-2.
(16) Engles: Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844
(17) Marx Capital (ibid)
(18)-(19) Engles: Origin (ibid)
(20-21) Marx & Engles (ibid)
(22) Engles: Origin (ibid)
(23) Stalin: Problems of Leninism
(24) Lenin: February 21, 1920
(25) Lenin: Letter from Afar, Lettre III
(26) Engles: Origin (ibid)
(27)-(28) Lenin: A great Begining
(29) Engles: Origin (ibid)
(30) Lenin: International Women's Day, 1918
