On the 8th of March 2018, three women from the aca­de­mia with gro­wing fame published a poli­ti­cal mani­fes­to: Femi­nism for the %99: A Mani­fes­to which spread their poli­ti­cal cam­paign through the world. Nancy Fra­ser, Cin­zia Arruz­za and Tithi Bhat­ta­char­ya, ins­pi­red by the “Occupy Wall Street” move­ment deve­lo­ped in 2011, had the inten­tion to ques­tion libe­ral femi­nism by coun­te­rac­ting it with “anti-capi­ta­list” femi­nism, which they wished to strengthen in the gene­ral poli­ti­cal sphe­re. Their aim was to unco­ver the eman­ci­pa­tory pos­si­bi­li­ties that hide behind current femi­nist posi­tions, and pro­ve that they are wor­ka­ble.

In the authors’ words, nowa­days, with the cre­di­bi­lity of the poli­ti­cal eli­te having been worn down, we find our­sel­ves surroun­ded by the appro­pria­te con­di­tions neces­sary to begin to think about “anti-capi­ta­list” femi­nism. Accor­ding to the three aca­de­mics, with the defeat of Hillary Clin­ton in 2016, libe­ral femi­nism suf­fe­red a down­fall, sta­ting that the reason for it was the gap per­so­ni­fied by Clin­ton bet­ween women that reached high posi­tions and the bene­fit of the majo­rity of the popu­la­tion. They explain that this ope­ned up pos­si­bi­li­ties for the affair to be taken upon by the left (Arruz­za et al., 2019).

Yet sur­pri­singly, sin­ce Hillary Clinton’s defeat, her party has orga­ni­zed two World Mar­ches of Women, one Women’s Stri­ke, and has sup­por­ted the MeToo move­ment, phe­no­me­na that the authors clas­sify as anti-capi­ta­list femi­nism. To unders­tand this it is essen­tial to under­li­ne that, sin­ce the ’80s, with aca­de­mic theory having dis­car­ded the con­cept of class, the Demo­cra­tic Party has shif­ted the focus of its elec­to­ral pro­po­sals to other iden­ti­ties, by finan­cing (and that way assu­ming) various collec­ti­ves by means of a foun­da­tio­nal net­work (Baraho­na, 2018). In this con­text, it is logi­cal to have orga­ni­zed a mas­si­ve anti-Trump mobi­li­za­tion (the Women’s March that took pla­ce in Washing­ton) after having lost to him in the elec­tions. Accor­ding to Baraho­na (2018), this event had the help of many dif­fe­rent means sin­ce the begin­ning, such as the Move On[1] plat­form, which is tied to the Open Society Foun­da­tion[2] . This has been a plat­form that has thrown itself into for­ming and pro­mo­ting the Demo­cra­tic elec­to­ra­te. Given its suc­cess, the pro­mo­ters of the mobi­li­sa­tion did not wait much and befo­re long had already sket­ched the Inter­na­tio­nal Women’s Stri­ke for the 8th of March.

In January 2018, the second World March of Women was openly pre­sen­ted under the mot­to “Power to the Polls”. This had a noti­cea­ble effect on Novem­ber of that same year, when a diver­sity never seen befo­re in the sena­to­rial elec­tions of the Uni­ted Sta­tes illu­mi­na­ted us (260 elec­tor women). Some des­cri­bed it as being a “pro­gres­si­ve wave of women”, and Fra­ser her­self even explai­ned that the­se women had the initia­ti­ve to try to struc­tu­rally chan­ge their country’s fun­ctio­ning, the­re­fo­re naming them “anti-esta­blish­ment”. For that reason, it seems to be qui­te con­tra­dic­tory that the fai­lu­re of Clinton’s libe­ral femi­nism, that was sup­po­sed to bring the neces­sary con­di­tions for the upri­sing of anti-capi­ta­list femi­nism, was to be the prin­ci­pal exam­ple of anti-capi­ta­list femi­nism itself.

Any­ways, back to the main sub­ject: we could say that this spe­ci­fic poli­ti­cal con­text in the USA and the offen­si­ve the wor­king class is suf­fe­ring due to the world­wi­de cri­sis situa­tion, has given the ade­qua­te con­di­tions for a con­cept such as “femi­nism for the 99%” to be put on the table. Accor­ding to the authors, femi­nism for the 99% has the goal of uni­ting actual and futu­re move­ments with a broad array of prin­ci­ples on one big world­wi­de rebe­llion. Towards this cau­se, they say it’s espe­cially essen­tial to make allian­ces with the anti-capi­ta­list left within the move­ments that defend the 99%.

The­se aca­de­mic women think that the con­cept of “stri­king” that has been deve­lo­ped in the last few years has had an impact on new ways of doing poli­tics, and even more, our unders­tan­ding of “work” has deve­lo­ped and spread and, con­se­quently, the “wor­king class” itself has been rede­fi­ned. We agree, the lef­tist move­ments that have cir­cu­la­ted an eco­no­mis­tic inter­pre­ta­tion of the wor­king class have fallen into the ditch.

On the other hand, we also agree with the struc­tu­ral unders­tan­ding of the wor­king class, and pla­ce it in the midd­le of the capital’s glo­bal cour­se of action, which means that all tho­se that need a salary to sur­vi­ve belong in this cate­gory. This reveals the con­tra­dic­tion bet­ween capi­tal and labour, the anta­go­nis­tic inter­ests of the two clas­ses. We’re led to think that the three authors have the same analy­sis when they speak about how the divi­sion bet­ween the need to pro­du­ce pro­fit and also pro­du­ce humans has bred deep ten­sions in the heart of the capi­ta­list society.

Even so, to jump from that analy­sis of class to the theory about the 99%, the authors (2019) obser­ved the con­tra­dic­tions born in the deve­lop­ment of the objec­ti­ve con­di­tions which stem from this sta­te of cri­sis, which has had a deci­si­ve impact when it came to iden­tif­ying the sub­ject of this poli­ti­cal pro­po­sal. This is made appa­rent when they express in their mani­fes­to how, nowa­days, the­se con­tra­dic­tions have star­ted to reach a boi­ling point in the belly of capi­ta­lism. In prac­ti­ce, the authors say, no one except the 1% has been able to esca­pe from the suf­fo­ca­ting grasp of eco­no­mic pre­ca­rious­ness, the exhaust of social repro­duc­tion and poli­ti­cal free-for-all.

Once having reached this point it is evi­dent that this stra­ta­gem, that lacks a clea­rer or more spe­ci­fic expla­na­tion, already res­ponds to many inac­cu­ra­cies. On one hand, to unders­tand that the con­cept of class goes beyond waged labour musn’t make us form abs­tract or vague iden­ti­ties of class: the 99%, in this case. To pin­point the root of the pro­blem on the 1% demons­tra­tes a clearly unrea­lis­tic study of reality. It’s worthy to men­tion the capi­ta­list mode of pro­duc­tion, that, even though it rests upon a spe­ci­fic com­po­si­tion of class ‑which Marx defi­ned as “rela­tions of capi­tal”: a com­po­si­tion made up by the oppo­si­tion bet­ween the waged labou­rer and the capi­ta­list- (Yeni­koy, 2019), sin­ce the second half of the XXth cen­tury, when the rise of wel­fa­re sta­tes in dif­fe­rent coun­tries of the West, gave way to the crea­tion of labour aris­to­cracy. Even though this last ele­ment belongs insi­de the his­to­ri­cal cate­gory of the wor­king class, when com­pa­red with the pro­le­ta­riat, it is the stra­tum most capa­ble of accu­mu­la­ting money: due to the public invest­ment the­se types of sta­tes recei­ved, they began to be able to save up money from their sala­ries. The­re­fo­re, as men­tio­ned befo­re, even though an objec­ti­ve defi­ni­tion can make refe­ren­ce to whe­re in the fabric of the sphe­re of pro­duc­tion the sub­ject is posi­tio­ned socially, this goes beyond the analy­sis of two anta­go­nis­tic clas­ses.

On the other hand, to deve­lop a poli­ti­cal analy­sis, it’s essen­tial to be awa­re of the poli­ti­cal defi­ni­tion of class, seeing that the tech­ni­cal defi­ni­tion by itself doesn’t de fac­to spe­cify its poli­ti­cal posi­tion. The­re­fo­re, this sub­jec­ti­ve desig­na­tion would res­pond to each social class acting as a poli­ti­cal sub­ject. In this case, the labour aris­to­cracy takes cen­ter ground as a mat­ter of opi­nion, due to the living con­di­tions this social sec­tor has piled up throughout the years having crea­ted a cer­tain stan­dard of needs and demands, sin­ce it has ope­ned the door to the phe­no­me­non of the “midd­le class”. That is to say that, when the labour aris­to­cracy has had the chan­ce to level with the inter­ests of the petit bour­geo­is, it has crea­ted the pos­si­bi­lity to form a poli­ti­cal body bet­ween the two, that way promp­ting this first group to take on reac­tio­nary posi­tions when revo­lu­tio­nary attem­pts mani­fes­ted. Addi­tio­nally, with the inten­tion of ensu­ring the­se social posi­tions, apart from the fact that the labour aris­to­cracy has nego­tia­ted with the capi­ta­lists the quan­tity of mer­chan­di­se they’re able to recei­ve, it’s res­pon­si­ble for making the poli­ti­cal direc­ti­ve of this high layer of the wor­king class beco­me the rear­guard of the capi­tal (Yeni­koy, 2019).

In this regard, we could say that simply expe­rien­cing the con­se­quen­ces of the inner con­tra­dic­tions of capi­ta­lism doesn’t inhe­rently make the per­son revo­lu­tio­nary. We have men­tio­ned mul­ti­ple times that, in this day and age, even though the oppres­sion of wor­king class women still res­ponds to a mate­rial basis, its cul­tu­ral and juri­di­cal mani­fes­ta­tions have an effect on all women. This doesn’t mean that we can ever con­si­der the women of the pro­perty-owning class to be allies: it is requi­red for them to accept the con­se­quen­ces of the oppres­sion they repro­du­ce so they can hold on dearly to their posi­tions. As a result, to defi­ne the sub­ject of a poli­ti­cal stra­tegy that is sup­po­sed to deve­lop class cons­cious­ness as the 99% is vague and inac­cu­ra­te.

Once having defi­ned the sub­ject in this man­ner, the ori­gi­na­tors of the mani­fest express that their the­sis about the 99% con­fronts the two options the capi­tal offers.They reject not only reac­tio­nary popu­lism but also its pro­gres­si­ve neo­li­be­ral oppo­nents. They intend to win over wor­king-class frac­tions in both of tho­se poli­ti­cal bodies, to then form a anti-capi­ta­list block strong and power­ful enough to trans­form society.

Yet still, the only thing that con­tra­dicts neo­li­be­ral forms of poli­tics isn’t reac­tio­nary popu­lism. Even more, we can’t lea­ve behind the fact that the­re are many poli­ti­cal forms that are sup­por­ters of the capi­ta­list demo­cracy: social demo­cracy and lef­tist popu­lism being the most nota­ble. The­se poli­ti­cal bran­ches are usually a reflec­tion of the phe­no­me­non of the midd­le class; attem­pts of the labour aris­to­cracy to recu­pe­ra­te the wel­fa­re sta­te in the name of main­tai­ning its sta­tus quo. It’s incre­di­ble how the authors fai­led to men­tion this, con­si­de­ring that Ber­nie San­ders [3]him­self (the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of social demo­cracy in the USA), a per­fect exam­ple, has been publicly sup­por­ted by Fra­ser. Isn’t this becau­se of the authors them­sel­ves are an exam­ple of this type of poli­tics? In fact, the mani­fes­to itself is a sly accla­ma­tion of the midd­le class, that over­looks the daily con­tra­dic­tions of the class strug­gle that the pro­le­ta­riat suf­fers and crea­tes an abs­tract class iden­tity: the peo­ple vs the oli­garchy, or the 99% vs the %1 (Alda­lur, 2019).  

We’ve already learnt the les­son that a poli­ti­cal pro­ject that wishes to deve­lop a class stra­tegy can’t simply reach out to the mul­ti­tu­de of move­ments that ari­se from under­neath (Arruz­za et al., 2019). This idea res­ponds to the theory of inter­sec­tio­na­lity, seeing that it doesn’t gua­ran­tee that neither the prin­ci­ples or their tac­tics and stra­tegy res­ponds in any way to the inter­ests of the wor­king class. In con­clu­sion, in order to orga­ni­ze social power accor­ding to the inter­ests of the wor­king class, the poli­ti­cal move­ment in ques­tion must pay spe­cial atten­tion to how the class enemy struc­tu­rally exer­ci­ses its domi­ni­on in each his­to­ri­cal era and moment (Yeni­koy, 2019). This means that, besi­des focu­sing the object of the revo­lu­tion on the class-enemy, we also have to iden­tify how it mani­fests, even uncons­ciously, in tho­se who have assi­mi­la­ted and defend its inter­ests, becau­se the­se often beco­me the big­gest kind of obs­ta­cle and incon­ve­nien­ce of the revo­lu­tio­nary pro­cess. In this regard, we could con­si­der that, in the last six deca­des, the labour aris­to­cracy has hege­mo­ni­zed in dif­fe­rent wor­ker stra­tums in Wes­tern wel­fa­re sta­tes, and gene­rally in the wor­king class, the bour­geo­is poli­ti­cal agen­da (Yeni­koy, 2019).

Today’s cri­sis con­text, with the begin­ning of a new cycle of world­wi­de accu­mu­la­tion and, sub­se­quently, a new poli­ti­cal cycle, requi­res a pre­ci­se analy­sis. The objec­ti­ve con­di­tions are gra­dually ripe­ning, whilst also sprea­ding the system’s inter­nal con­tra­dic­tions, as the authors explain. As a per­fect exam­ple, even though the­re have been many advan­ces made towards the legal equa­lity of men and women, men’s vio­len­ce against women has risen in the most pro­le­ta­rian sec­tors of society. Howe­ver, we can’t think that the deve­lop­ment of eco­no­mic con­di­tions mecha­ni­cally and para­llely deve­lop sub­jec­ti­ve con­di­tions. It’s evi­dent that some­ti­mes the object impli­ca­tes the sub­ject that expres­ses itself accor­ding to its his­to­ri­cal duty (Sama­nie­go, 2019). But, due to the con­di­tion of being exploi­ted, for this sub­ject to free its poten­tial, we ought to be pre­ci­se when orga­ni­zing a correct social divi­sion of work; effec­ti­ve orga­ni­za­tion, that is. For this reason, orga­ni­za­tio­nal inde­pen­den­ce regar­ding the capi­ta­list class is more impor­tant than ever: if we are trying to reach bour­geo­is power dyna­mics, we must neces­sa­rily fight all the facets and fac­tions of its power, them being either struc­tu­ral or poli­ti­cal.

Hen­ce, femi­nism that intends to end capi­ta­lism must be pre­ci­se when it comes to spe­cif­ying its goals and the right tac­tic to get the­re step by step. This means that a poli­ti­cal pro­gram must be deve­lo­ped enti­rely in the inter­ests of wor­king class women, and face every form of oppres­sion by unif­ying the wor­king class. In this feat, for the correct mode of orga­ni­za­tion, dri­ving the wor­king woman to beco­me an acti­ve mili­tant is a cha­llen­ge we must prio­ri­ti­ze.


– Alda­lur, B. (2019÷06÷05). Des­mo­bi­li­za­zioa eta iden­ti­ta­te poli­ti­kak. Recu­pe­ra­do de: https://​gedar​.eus/​k​o​i​u​n​t​u​r​a​/​b​e​n​a​t​a​l​d​a​l​u​r​/​d​e​s​m​o​b​i​l​i​z​a​z​i​o​a​-​e​t​a​-​i​d​e​n​t​i​t​a​t​e​-​p​o​l​i​t​i​kak

– Alda­lur, B. (2019÷09÷11). G7a Bia­rritzen, kla­se ana­li­si­ra­ko ekar­pen labu­rra. Recu­pe­ra­do de: https://​gedar​.eus/​k​o​i​u​n​t​u​r​a​/​b​e​n​a​t​a​l​d​a​l​u​r​/​g​7​a​-​b​i​a​r​r​i​t​z​e​n​-​k​l​a​s​e​-​a​n​a​l​i​s​i​r​a​k​o​-​e​k​a​r​p​e​n​-​l​a​b​u​rra

– Alda­lur, B. (2019÷11÷05). Kla­se iden­ti­ta­teak eta pro­ze­su sozia­lis­ta: gau­za bera ote dira? Recu­pe­ra­do de: https://​gedar​.eus/​k​o​i​u​n​t​u​r​a​/​b​e​n​a​t​a​l​d​a​l​u​r​/​k​l​a​s​e​-​i​d​e​n​t​i​t​a​t​e​a​k​-​e​t​a​-​p​r​o​z​e​s​u​-​s​o​z​i​a​l​i​s​t​a​-​g​a​u​z​a​-​b​e​r​a​-​o​t​e​-​d​ira

– Arruz­za, C., Bhat­ta­char­ya T. & Fra­ser N. (2019). Femi­nism for the 99%: A Mani­fes­to. Bar­ce­lo­na: Her­der.

– Andra­de, A. & De Sus, E. (2019÷04÷03). “Nece­si­ta­mos una defi­ni­ción total­men­te dife­ren­te del con­cep­to de cla­se tra­ba­ja­do­ra” Nancy Fra­ser. Reupe­ra­do de: https://​ctxt​.es/​e​s​/​2​0​1​9​0​4​0​3​/​P​o​l​i​t​i​c​a​/​2​5​3​7​4​/​n​a​n​c​y​-​f​r​a​s​e​r​-​f​e​m​i​n​s​i​m​o​-​t​r​u​m​p​-​a​d​r​i​a​n​a​-​m​-​a​n​d​r​a​d​e​-​e​l​e​n​a​-​d​e​-​s​u​s​.​htm

– Baraho­na, T. (2018÷01÷30). La mar­cha inter­na­cio­nal de las muje­res o la arte­ra ins­tru­men­ta­li­za­ción del femi­nis­mo. Recu­pe­ra­do de: https://​www​.lahai​ne​.org/​m​m​_​s​s​_​m​u​n​d​o​.​p​h​p​/​l​a​-​m​a​r​c​h​a​-​i​n​t​e​r​n​a​c​i​o​n​a​l​-​d​e​-​las

– D’atri, A. & Muri­llo, C. (2019÷07÷28). Femi­nis­mo para el 99%: estra­te­gias en deba­te. Recu­pe­ra­do de: http://​www​.izquier​da​dia​rio​.es/​F​e​m​i​n​i​s​m​o​-​p​a​r​a​-​e​l​-​9​9​-​e​s​t​r​a​t​e​g​i​a​s​-​e​n​-​d​e​b​ate

– Sama­nie­go, M. (2019÷06÷26). Sor­ta­su­nez­ko komu­nis­moa eta ziklo poli­ti­ko edo ziklo eko­no­mi­ko berria. Recu­pe­ra­do de: https://​gedar​.eus/​k​o​i​u​n​t​u​r​a​/​m​a​r​k​e​l​s​a​m​a​n​i​e​g​o​/​s​o​r​t​a​s​u​n​e​z​k​o​-​k​o​m​u​n​i​s​m​o​a​-​e​t​a​-​z​i​k​l​o​-​p​o​l​i​t​i​k​o​-​e​d​o​-​m​e​t​a​k​e​t​a​-​z​i​k​l​o​-​b​e​r​ria

– Yeni­koy (2019). Kapi­ta­la­ren des­po­tis­moa eta pro­le­ta­riotza. Recu­pe­ra­do de: https://​gedar​.eus/​p​d​f​/​l​z​/​2​0​1​9​1​1​1​9​_​K​a​p​i​t​a​l​a​r​e​n​_​d​e​s​p​o​t​i​s​m​o​a​_​e​t​a​_​p​r​o​l​e​t​a​r​i​o​t​z​a​.​pdf

[1] This plat­form takes care of the orga­ni­za­tion and mana­ge­ment of the movi­li­za­tions men­tio­ned. They are very trans­pa­rent about their ties with the Demo­cra­tic Party, It’s clear when obser­ved who their can­di­da­te for 2020 is: “In the 2020 elec­tion cycle, MoveOn is com­mit­ted to making sure that a pro­gres­si­ve, ins­pi­ring, and com­pe­ti­ti­ve Demo­cra­tic nomi­nee who is accoun­ta­ble to the broa­der move­ment emer­ges from the pre­si­den­tial pri­ma­ries to defeat Donald Trump.” To learn more: https://​front​.moveon​.org/​a​b​o​u​t​/​?​u​t​m​_​s​o​u​r​c​e​=​f​r​o​n​t​&​u​t​m​_​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​=​nav

[2] Open Society Foun­da­tion is an inter­na­tio­nal net­work crea­ted by the tycoon Geor­ge Soros. Its pur­po­se is to finan­ce dif­fe­rent groups in the civil society. To learn more: https://​www​.open​so​ciety​foun​da​tions​.org/

[3] He ran with the Demo­cra­tic party in 2015 – 2016. Yet still, he is the lon­gest ser­ving inde­pen­dent repre­sen­ta­ti­ve in the Con­gres­sio­nal his­tory of the USA. To learn more:

http://​cana​rias​-sema​nal​.org/​a​r​t​/​2​5​0​6​5​/​f​e​m​i​n​i​s​m​o​-​d​e​l​-​9​9​-​l​a​-​u​l​t​i​m​a​-​e​s​t​r​a​t​e​g​i​a​-​p​a​r​a​-​d​e​s​p​i​s​t​a​r​-​a​-​l​a​s​-​t​r​a​b​a​j​a​d​o​ras edo http://​cana​rias​-sema​nal​.org/​a​r​t​/​2​5​7​0​5​/​e​n​-​l​o​s​-​e​s​t​a​d​o​s​-​u​n​i​d​o​s​-​e​l​-​s​o​c​i​a​l​i​s​m​o​-​t​e​-​l​o​-​t​r​a​e​-​e​l​-​d​e​p​a​r​t​a​m​e​n​t​o​-​d​e​-​e​s​t​ado

Jato­rria /​Ori­gen

Artikulua gustoko al duzu? / ¿Te ha gustado este artículo?

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *