Recently I've been witness to a number of explosive encounters between gender justice activists and feminists. The former accuse the latter of essentializing gender by daring to speak of "women," while the latter accuse the former of ignoring the realities of gender inequality. These two camps seem to be able to hear one another less and less.
I want to be careful not to suggest that the divide is absolute or that it has forced into two discrete camps all those who resist gender oppression. However, reading Silvia Federici's collection of essays that span from 1975 to 2011, I can't help but wonder how her tireless articulation of a radical materialist feminism might fall out of the current debates altogether. Her unapologetic insistence on an analysis of the exploitation and resistance of women makes her a likely target of anti-essentialist absolutists. And her fierce critique of liberal feminism's narrow focus on equality and women in the workplace puts her out of step with much contemporary feminist advocacy.
Federici's 2004 monumental study of the European witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th Centuries, Caliban and the Witch, offered a dense analysis based on extensive research of historical documents. The essays collected in Revolution at Point Zero offer a different kind of writing. Less based on primary research than Caliban and the Witch, these essays demonstrate the voice of a public intellectual weighing in and intervening on urgent debates in political movements. Since many of the essays originally appeared in movement publications, conferences, and journals or anthologies addressing current political events, Federici places the emphasis on critique and synthesis and less on detailed in depth research or observation. These are writings for movement activists. Each essay offers precise arguments that seek to challenge conventional wisdom in Leftist thinking. Whether she's writing a political tract for the 1970s Wages for Housework campaign or analyzing the gendering of poverty under globalization, Federici's critical themes remain consistent. She continually targets Marxist analyses that minimize the importance of reproductive labor. Federici also voices her opposition to a feminism that ignores the material conditions of women. The effect of these themes is that one begins to understand how a number of key contradictions persist over the years as long as they remain unrealized politically.
In the 2008 essay, "The Reproduction of Labor Power," Federici offers her most succinct argument for the constancy of her critique. Some in the feminist movement have criticized Federici's on-going use of the term "labor-power." These critics find the term reductive and an abstraction. But for Federici, the term reminds us that all labor, productive and reproductive, occurs within the constraints of the demands of the labor market; the coercive system wherein people sell their labor for a wage. So while reproductive labor is generally outside of the wage system, it remains conditioned by the needs of capitalism for the reproduction of workers in that wage system. Secondly, she argues, the term "labor-power" allows us to recognize the fundamental contradiction in reproductive labor between the desire to serve the needs of one's family and community with the production and valorization of that desire to meet the needs of the labor market. "Labor-power" reminds us that even in the most intimate spaces of caregiving, we chafe against the exploitation of that intimacy by capital. Having a name for that contradiction allows us to understand the radical potential of reproductive labor to fundamentally redefine the entire category of work and to collectivize reproduction as resistance.
What emerges powerfully over the course of these essays is the implicit argument that woman is the socially-determined word for workers whose labor is unwaged, naturalized, and yet "essential" for the reproduction of an exploited workforce. Likewise, as Federici writes in the last pages of the collection, woman is also the socially-determined word for those whose knowledge, experience, and struggles around reproductive labor have served and will continue to serve as a crucial foundation of anti-capitalist resistance and another possible world. For this reason, these essays offer a vital resource for radicals engaged in anti-capitalist and feminist praxis. Federici challenges the idealism of a gender politics delinked from a materialist analysis as much as she provides the tools for challenging a petite bourgeois ideology that delinks theory from practice itself.
As one side note, I think it would be useful to excavate the political conditions that require Federici (and other radicals) to misrepresent Marx as somehow committed to a linear notion of history. In nearly each and every essay compiled in Revolution as Point Zero, Federici argues that Marx cleaved to the idea that capitalism represented a progressive force in history; a necessary stage on the road to proletarian emancipation. Marx gets accused of overlooking colonialism and adhering to a Eurocentric point of view. Ironically, Federici cites Samir Amin as a critic of Marx's Eurocentrism and the limits of Marxism for an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist politics. I say, ironically, because in his book, Eurocentrism, Amin joined a long line of scholars who have demonstrated that Marx complicates the image of a Eurocentric thinker. (Other such scholars include Horace B. Davis, John Bellamy Foster, Sunti Kumar Ghosh, Kenzo Mohri, and Teodor Shanin.) Kevin B. Anderson's recent, Marx at the Margins, goes to great lengths to show Marx's engagement with anti-colonial struggles and his critical perspective on race and gender, countering long-standing claims about his Eurocentricity to which Federici and many others adhere.
But again, rather than seeking to correct Federici or, worse, discount her arguments, I ask why it becomes necessary to marginalize Marx from a radical feminist and anti-capitalist project? At my age, I've come to learn that such debates often have political and strategic bases. Hence I think the answer may lie in Federici's insistence (as well as that of Maria Della Costa, Selma James, and Leopoldina Fortunati) on the centrality of feminism to the anti-capitalist project. One can argue that the organization of working class resistance in which Marx played a crucial role focused almost entirely on industrial labor. But when he opens the analysis to reflect on the metabolic rift from the natural world, colonial extraction, and enslavement, etc. Marx acknowledges a constitutive relationship between the conditions of reproduction and commodity production.
So, I ask, why one would marginalize Marx (all the while remaining very much oriented towards Marx in one's critique) becomes a provocative question. It is a political question; one that has the potential to interrogate socialist strategies of the past in contrast to Federici's vision of an alternative form of social organization wherein reproductive labor, the point zero of the book's title, has the potential for a revolutionary mode of production in opposition to capitalist accumulation. Is Federici merely inverting the paradigm, undialectically replacing one dogma for another? Or does that inversion make a kind of politics possible that productivism denied? These are questions to be taken up in organizing, militant inquiry, and political experimentation.