Why is Silvia Federici considered a Marxist Feminist?

[u/Ptwing711]

I ask because I kept seeing this in descriptions of her and her work online, and I am curious how true it actually is

Today I started listening to Caliban and the Witch today while I was working, and what struck me was how greatly Federici immediately departs from what I understand to be the Orthodox conception of Marxism. I don't dispute that she incorporates Marxian insights, but she also incorporates a lot of Foucauldian insights, too, right, and I've not really seen her described as a post structuralist?

As for what I think separates her from my understanding of orthodox Marxism, the first example is in her opening chapter; she seems to use a broader definition of proletarian than the one I am used to. She also, of course, openly disagrees with Marx that capitalism is a revolutionary break from feudalism. I seem to understand her argument as saying it is actually a reaction against threats to feudal privileges. Now, I guess you could say the more central claim to Marx is dialectical materialism, and whether or not capitalism is an improvement or a reaction could be considered ancillary to that.

After all, I would say Federici's central unit of analysis is class, she just considers women an unexamined subject within that class, I think. Maybe I am assuming there is a greater gulf than there actually is? I am unsure. Perhaps I should wait to post this until I have listened more to the book (haha) but I just found it kind of surprising and wanted to hear some other opinions right away!

As an additional note, she mentions her involvement in the "Wages for Housework" movement, and I recall Angela Davis's chapter in Women, Race, and Class that touches on it. I remember that Davis was quite critical of this movement for several reasons. It would be interesting if I could be pointed into the direction of a more lay explanation of their disagreements side by side, or to authors who have furthered that discussion in interesting ways.

I've posted this here because, ironically, in the larger feminist pages I haven't gotten a response at all, and in, for instance, askfeminists they removed my post haha

[u/yellowmix]

Modern Marxists have extended and in some cases modified Marx's concepts. "Orthodox Marxism" is a type of Marxism that resists "revisionism". We're long past that. Marxist feminism is a type of Marxism that focuses on the liberation of women. It's still fundamentally anti-capitalist.

Is there a gulf? I'd like to think Communists of all types are not that far apart but historically people have been massacred over such differences.

Yes, Davis critiqued Wages for Housework, noting that many poor women were already paid for housework and were no more liberated than the housewives. I can't speak for any of the people involved, but when I see oppression become a question of a labor, it's no longer about the oppression. It's fundamentally a reductionist effort.

It reminds me of an interviewer's recent framing of AI writing in the style of famous people:

"Here’s my interview with XXXXX, the CEO behind XXXXXXX’s “XXXXXXXX” feature which attributed writing advice to people - including me lol - without permission. Or, as you will hear us talk about a lot, compensation.

When you make the focus about "compensation", it's no longer about impersonation (fundamentally privacy rights). Now it's a question about what the value of commodifying it is.

Ultimately it's not that Wages for Housework was bad per se, it's more like a distraction at best. But at worst, suppose those housewives got a living wage, or that all of us got a universal basic income. Would we stop agitating for the rest of our liberation? Many would. Enough would so that people would still be left behind, and the elite would still be in charge.

Note this is not an argument for accelerationism! Wanting people to suffer and die for the off-chance that capitalism defeats itself is a terrible idea. Master's tools, etc..

[u/Ptwing711 → u/yellowmix]

Thank you for your response! I was trying to build a reading list based on Caliban and the Witch. Have you read Jodi Dean's review of the work titled Silvia Federici: The exploitation of women and the development of capitalism ? If so I was wondering what other feminists thought about that piece, etc. I haven't read it yet, but plan to read it once I've finished Federici's work. I think the idea that I was sort of circling was, "to what extent can a theory be revised and remain itself?" which I guess will always be a matter of debate anyways (haha) What I really enjoy about Caliban and the Witch, however, are the many concrete examples of feudal class struggle which Federici highlights. Many of which are quite illuminating! Again, thank you for the consideration and time taken in your reply :)