Alexandra Kollontai and Marxist Feminism

Author(s): Jinee Lokaneeta

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 17 (Apr. 28 - May 4, 2001), pp. 1405-1412
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4410544
Accessed: 10-07-2015 21:34 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political
Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Alexandra Kollontai
and Marxist Feminism
To record the contradictions within the life and writings of Alexandra Kollontai is to
reclaim a largely unidentifiedpart of Marxistfeminist history that attemptedto extend
Engel's and Bebel's analysis of women's oppression but eventually went further to
expose the inadequacy of prevalent Marxistfeminist history and practice in analysing
the woman's question. This essay is not an effort to reclaim that history uncritically,
but to give recognition to Kollontai's efforts and understandher perspective.

JINEE LOKANEETA

I beredforthepostof anambassador, which the absenceof informationaboutwomen,

Politicsof Memory actuallyindicatedher politicaldownfall, but the sense that such informationwas
requiresa little explanation: notrelevantto theconcernsof historythat
T he 150th year of the Communist It reaffirmsthe selective memory of led to the invisibility of women in the
Manifesto saw many initiatives all official histories,which retainonly those formalaccountsof the past"[Scott1988].
over the world to critically re- aspects of history that fit within the Kollontai'scase indicatesthatit is not
examine the basic tenets of Marxism. There dominantversionrecorded.Two illustra- irrelevanceof informationbut ratherthe
are also efforts on to review the socialist tions to indicatehow Kollontaiwas ig- criticalnatureof herspeechesandarticles
experiments in Soviet Union and other noredby the Socialistrevolutionary tradi- thatled to her invisibilityandirrelevance
countries. Simultaneous is a need felt to tion and more specificallyby Soviet his- for official history. If one looks at the
recover the voices of those who professed toryshouldbe sufficientas cases in point. attempts made to democratise written
Marxist ideology but were marginalised Lenin's writingson womentitled On the history,one findsthat,sincethe 1970s,the
in history, theory and practice, for their Emancipationof Women(1965) seem to women'smovementandwomen'sstudies
critical questioning and dissenting inter- be oblivious to the very existence of haveattemptedto recordwomen'shistory
ventions. It is importantalso because these AlexandraKollontailet aloneresponding in contrastto theandro-centric historythat
life experiences lay barenot only the nature to thequestionsraisedby her.Thelife and existedearlier.Theexclusionof women's
of official historics and history-makers but writingsof Kollontaiarerestrictedtoa thin lives and theirperspectivesfrom a patri-
the possibilities which existed or did not volumeof SelectedSpeechesandArticles archal recordingof 'male' history was
exist for experimentation within a parti- of Kollontaipublishedby ProgressPub- soughtto be rectified.New methodsand
cular ideology/history/practice. lishers, Moscow (1984). The publishers techniques were developed to write a
Acclaimed either as the first woman are indeed 'selective' as they attemptto feminist history. Much of the early at-
ambassadorof the Soviet state in the 1920s- present a completely abridgedand un- temptswere in termsof a 'compensatory
1930s or denounced as the proponent of controversialpicture of Kollontai that history'thatis placingthe 'greatwomen'
'free love' in post-revolutionary Russia, overlooksall issuesof dissensionfromthe alongsidethe 'greatmen' and studytheir
AlexandraKollontai (I 872-1952) has been officialpartyhistory.Hercontributions as contributionto the social concerns of
usually subjected to a monolithic charac- a close comrade-in-arms of Lenin and a patriarchal history.Althoughthis attempt
terisation.The list of prominent women of successfulcommissararelauded.Butwhat to 'retrieve'women from history was a
the socialist revolutionary tradition has are carefullyconcealedare the moments majorcontribution,the limitationsof this
included names of ClaraZetkin, Nadhezda of oppositionand resistanceagainst the methodwerealso recognised.Compensa-
Krupskaya and Rosa Luxembourg. 'dominant'partypositionsandthestruggles tory history was consideredinadequate
Alexandra Kollontai, who was described thatshewagedinsidetheparty.Itis accord- dueto its inabilityto transcendthehistory
reportedlyas a 'brilliantoratorand power- ing to the latterthatthe politicalgraphof of the privileged.In otherwords,it could
ful propagandist' by Lenin during the Kollontai'slife rose and fell and finally only locate 'exceptional' women who
revolution, was the only woman in the led to her removalfrom the mainstream had been able to contributetowardsthe
central committee in August 1917 and of Sovietpolitics,toberemembered merely major events in 'male' history, which
became the commissar of social welfare as an ambassadorof Soviet Russiaor for excluded the majorityof women, their
in the first soviet government, is conspicu- a distortedversion of her writings.The perspectivesand experiencesalong with
ous by her absence in these accounts. presentessayattemptstoretrievethelesser- other subalternsections of society. The
Kollontai later went on to head the central knownfacetsof Kollontai' s life.Thiswould documentaryevidenceabouttheseexcep-
women's department ('Zhenotdel') of not only expose the politics of official tional women was also a consequenceof
Soviet Russia as a foremost leader of the historywritingsbutwouldalsoraisecertain their 'privileged'position.
Russian Social Democratic women's questions about Marxist feminism in Hence women's history focused on
movement. For such a person to be remem- earliertimes and today."It is clearlynot alternativeforms of evidence especially

Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2001 1405

This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 oralhistories,customs,photographs, relics, in her writings. Further,her practical Thisessay is notaneffortto uncritically
iconographyin order to rewrite history considerationsas a, people's commissar reclaimthat historybut to recognisethe
from a feminist as well as a subaltern couldseemat variancewithhervisionand attemptsmade by Kollontaito raise the
viewpoint.It was "the attemptto demo- the ideological questions raised by her 'woman'squestion' in a Marxistframe-
cratiseaccessto history,itsproductionand withinthe party.This also leads to a dif- workandunderstand herperspective.The
itscontent" [Davin1988].Theperiodisation ficulty in systematically analysing obvious limitationsof her workarisenot
of earlierhistorywritingwas also ques- Kollontai'swritings.Yet it is withinthese only fromthe fact thatshe was writingin
tioned since it had failed to accountfor levels that one senses the contradictions the early part of the century when the
-the transformationsin women's lives in herandthealternativetraditionthatshe revolutionarieswere engagedin a variety
say, forinstance,in termsof reproductive tried to represent. of campaignsbutalso in thecontextof the
rights or other issues concerning their Soviethistoryis repletewithsymbolsof 'strugglewithina struggle'5thatshe was
everydaylives. dissent;the questionis what was it that a partof. The BolshevikPartyas a whole
While recognising the limitations of madeKollontai'important'enoughto be hadto fightfirstagainsttheczaristsystem,
'compensatoryhistory',I would still like obliteratedalmost entirely from revolu- and then continuingforeign intervention
to place the presentattemptwithin this tionary Soviet history? Kollontai had and the women withinthe partyfoughta
trendwith some qualificationsespecially opposedthe official partypositionsmost dualstruggle.They notonlyfoughtalong-
because throughsuch a history one can forthrightlyon variousoccasionswhether side theirmale comradesbut also had to
lay bare the history of marginalisation it was on participationin the first world fight against the patriarchalvalues and
even in recent times. The question of war,2BrestLitovskTreaty,3andWorkers practicesprevailingin society,partyandthe
periodisationon the basis of changes in Opposition.4Itevenledtoherbeingousted state,even thoughin varyingmagnitudes.
women's lives is importantbut these from prominentgovernmentposts in the
changeshaveto be also relatedto periods lattertwo cases. But it was on her ideas II
of large-scaletransformations in societyso on the 'woman'squestion'thatshe faced Zhenotdel:AnInvisibleQuest
that it is not a partialrepresentationof maximumcriticism. forAutonomy
societalhistory.Further,it was nothistory Although Kollontai stated that the
itselfthatexcludedthemajorityof women struggleforwomen'srightshadtobewaged Zhenotdel,thewomen'sdepartment was
but the patriarchalforces and structures bothinsidethe partyandoutsideit, it was createdto providean autonomousspace
of society thatexcluded women's parti- the latter that had been theorised and for women within the Russian Socialist
cipationin severallarge-scalesocial pro- directedagainstthe bourgeoiswomen's Democratic movement. 'Rabonitsa' or
cesses, for instance,say the renaissance movement.Kollontaiexplainedat great 'woman worker' existed as a separate
whichJoanKelly drewattentionto, in her length the class natureof the bourgeois women's paperwhiletheotherpartypapers
pathbreakingarticle 'Did Women Have women's movementand its,limitationin had special pages relatedto women.It is
a Renaissance?'It would be pertinent, takingup issues of workingclass women. little knownthatthese spaces for raising
however,to clarifythatone is nottrivialis- Butshe failedto extendeven a semblance. the women's questioncame not due to a
ing the needto recordthe contributionof oftheorisation tothe'maleattitudes'within mechanicalimplementationof the Rus-
theinvisiblemajorityof womenin history. the partyand government.The criticism sianSocialistDemocraticParty's(RSDP)
Ratherit is to drawattentionalongsideto andhostilitythatshefacedforherattempts commitmenttowardsequalityfor women
the strugglewaged by many exceptional to build an autonomouswomen's group but were a result of a continuousand
womenin thespecifically'male'domains withinthe partyandfor her views on the arduousstruggleby revolutionary women
of a patriarchalsociety. These women's communistmoralityhasneverbeenreferred like AlexandraKollontai.
liveshaveoftenbeenobliterated fromsocial to,letaloneanalysed,exceptinverygeneral Russianhistoryhad experienceda tra-
memories. Official versions sought to terms. The strugglesthat she and other ditionof women'smovementlong before
eitherdestroyorconcealthe 'documentary womenhadto wagewithinthepartyto gain the torchbearers of the Bolshevikrevolu-
evidence' of their contribution. due recognitionof the woman'squestion tion even realisedthe necessity of mass
Toreclaima partof pasthistorybecomes has to be readfromher mild criticismof mobilisationof women for the socialist
allthemoredifficultwhenone hasto piece male attitudesin her writingas well as cause. Right from the onset of the early
togetherfragmentsof theoryfromselected from other accountsof that period.The revolutionary movement, women had
speeches,articlesandfiction,theselections contradictions in herrolesasparty/govern- participatedin the peasantrevoltsthatled
and interpretationsbeing different in mentofficial anda Marxistfeministtheo- to the abolitionof serfdomin 1861 and
western and Soviet literature.Being a ristis-perhaps mostevidentin herinability Bakunin's campaign of 'going to the
partymemberandgovern- to criticisethe party/governments
theorist,agitator, under- people'. The prominentleaders among
ment official at different moments, or standingof the woman'squestion.Yet to womencamemainlyfromthe aristocratic
simultaneously,Kollontai respondedto recordthe contradictionswithin the life backgroundlike Vera Figner and the
differentsituationsandaudiences.Within and writings,ofAlexandraKollontaiis to Leshern sisters on which Turgenev
the partystructure,with the masses (men reclaim a largely unidentified part of [Kollontai1984:41]wrotehisfamouspoem
andwomen),withthe rankandfile mem- Marxistfeministhistorythatattemptedto 'OntheThreshold'describingwomenwho
bers(menandwomen),Kollontaientered extend Engel's and Bebel's analysis of hadleft theirhomesto fightagainstsocial
into debates accordingto the levels of women's oppressionbut eventuallywent injustice. In the latter part of the 19th
consciousnessperceived,andtheextentof furtherto exposetheinadequacyof preva- centurytherewereaseriesof factorystrikes
'democraticdiscussion'permittedwhich lent Marxistfeministtheoryand practice andunrestwhichnot only involvedmany
could partiallyexplain the inconsistency in analysingthe woman's question. proletarianwomen but were also often

1406 Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2001

This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
initiatedby them.Strikesin the 1870sand
80s in factoriesof MoscowandPetersburg
werehistoricstruggleswherewomenplayed
a verysignificantrole.Veryfew however
were attractedto the Socialist Party.
Two factors in that period forced the
SocialDemocraticPartyto takeupthetask
of mobilisingwomen.Firstly,the 1905-06
struggle had revealed the revolutionary
potentialof womenas a section.Women
bore the bruntof the czar's soldiers for
demandingtheir rights, which reflected
their growing consciousness. Secondly,
the party could observe the increasing
influence of the so-called bourgeois
women'sorganisationswhichweremobi-
lisingwomenon variousfronts.Kollontai,
like most Marxists distinguished the
socialists from the so-called bourgeois
women's organisations.While the bour-
geois women'sorganisationsweresaidto
restricttheirdemandsfor civil andpoliti-
cal rightswithin a capitalistframework,
the socialistsbelieved in a joint struggle
of womenandoppressedmassesforsocio-
economicequalityin a socialist society.
AlthoughKollontaiin herwritingssug-
gested that the bourgeois women's
organisationswere to die a naturaldeath
due to their-owninternalcontradictions,
they actuallyposed a majorchallengeto
thesocialists.Thefirstattemptto organise
women was by clubs like the Russian
Women'sMutualAid society, meant to
provideconditionsfor recreationto bour-
geois women. But gradually other
organisationsarticulatingthe demandsof
women as a whole emerged.Accounts6
[Cliff] of that period write of the emer-
gence andgrowthof some militantfemi-
nists organisationswhich tried to raise
themselves 'above their class interests'
andincludetherightsof workingwomen,
like the Union for Women's Equality,
Women'sEqualRightsUnion,Women's
Progressive Pairty.Some of them not
only demandedsuffrage right but also
a set of radical,socialandlabourreforms.
Fora briefperiod,feministand socialists
workedtogetherand attractedwomen to
the UnitedWomen's Platform until the
socialists felt the need to dissociate
entirelyfromthebourgeoisorganisations.
Kollontai'sapprehensions aboutthegrowth
of bourgeoiswomen's organisationsare
apparentin her extensive writingon the
difference between the working class
perspectiveandthe 'feminist'perspective.
On the whole the bourgeois women's
organisationswere restrictedto fighting
for limited rights without demanding
Economicand PoliticalWeekly April 28, 20011407
This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
restructuringof society. However, they
were able to attractworking womento
their fronts,which was a disturbingfact
for the socialists.
Hence,it becamea politicalcompulsion
for the RSDPto attractwomentowardsa
class view of politics that integratedthe
women's questionwith proletarianrevo-
lution.The weaknessof the partyin this
sphereis exposedby the FirstAll Russian
Women'sconferencein 1905 whereonly
two women spoke of the workingclass
women'semancipationas beingrelatedto
overthrowof capitalismand this motion
too was decisivelydefeated.At thisjunc-
tureAlexandraKollontaiwas one of the
few who even while criticisingthe notion
of sisterhoodof all womenthatthe bour-
geois women'sorganisationspropagated,
sensed the need to create autonomous
channels to approachwomen. Compre-
hending the triple burden that women
had to bear as a worker,housewife and
mothershe recognisedthe need to estab-
lish separatechannelsof communication
tobringwomenintoastruggleforasocialist
society.Theeverydayoppressionof peas-
ant and workingclass women were seen
as specific and requiredto be articulated
alongwiththeotherdemandsof thestrug-
gling masses.
The strugglefor a separateorganisation
forwomenstartedfrom1906onwardsand
got actualisedonly aftertherevolution.In
1906 Kollontaitried to set up a women
workersbureaubut failed in the face of
theoppositionwithintheparty.Any effort
towards this purposewere thwartedby
partymembersas 'divisive'of theworking
class andsmackingof the very bourgeois
'feminism'thatKollontaiand othershad
spokenagainstso ardently.Inherwritings
Kollontaimentionsinstancesof partymen
deliberatelycreatingobstaclesintheirinitial
effortsto organisewomen.Buildingsfor
holdingmeetingswereoftenfoundlocked
andnoticesattached,declaringthosespaces
as unavailable for women's meetings.
Kollontai herself mentions the hostility
theyfaced."Theygave no encouragement
and even went as far as tryingto hinder
the group"[Kollontai1984:55].
Yetintheverynextparagraph, Kollontai
seemsto defendthehostileattitudesof the
partycomradesalmostas if any criticism
would he interpretedwrongly."Suchan
attitddewas based on an easily under-
standablefearthattheworkingclassmight
leave their class movementand get en-
tangledinthesnareof feminism"[Kollontai
1984:55].It is interestingto observethe
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
variousmeaningsof feminismthat were
perceivedwithinthe Marxistparties.On
the one hand, Kollontai recognised the
need to articulatethe women's question
butpreferredto dissociateherselffromthe
term 'feminism'.Feminismwvasequated
with bourgeoisfeminism,whichbelieved
in a united strugglefor women's rights
across all classes; thereby denying the
possibility of a struggle of the entire
working class (both men and women)
against the propertied classes which
Marxistspropagated.On the otherhand,
within the partyit was almost as if any
attemptto organisewomenseparatelywas
seen as a divisive attemptby 'feminists'
to hinderclass struggle.It seems ironical
thatKollontaiwho demolishedthe views
of bourgeoisfeministswas accordedsuch
criticismfromtheverypartycomradesshe
soughtto representand defend;and that
she herselfwas unableto transcendthese
criticismsand redefinefeminism within
Marxism.
It was in 1907 thatpartywomen were
first able to establisha club, the Society
for WorkingWomen'sMutualAid clari-
fyingbeforehandthat"generallyspeaking
the society did not bear the stamp of a
specificallywomen'sclub"indicatingthe
suspiciousnesstowardsthe issue of any
specific women's mobilisation.In these
unfavourable circumstances, eventhisclub
was a hardearnedvictoryandthis forum
wasutilisedtomobiliseandagitateamongst
workingwomen.
The nextphaseof massivemobilisation
came in the wake of the Februaryrevo-
lution in 1917. The numberof working
womenhadrapidlyincreased.Thewarand
the subsequentshortageof breadbrought
thousandsof menandwomenon thestreets
on February23 (March8). And it was
again the militancyof the workingclass
womenin bravingthe wrathof the Czar's
soldiersthatled to the RSDP to directits
attention towards mobilising women.
Despite the historyof joint strugglesby
workingclass men andwomen,the hosti-
litytowardsanyspecificallywomen-related
activity continued.AlexandraKolfontai
had been forced to leave the countryto
avoid arrest by the Czar for her 'anti
establishment' activitiesfrom1908onwards
till 1917andit is no merecoincidencethat
the issue of women's organisationwas
takenup againin a'bigway only afterher
return.Vera Slutskaya,a partymember,
who hadbeenaskedto drawa planfor the
partysuggestedthe formationof a bureau
to coordinate agitational work among
women and to restart the newspaper
Rabonitsa.Hencebureauswereset up but
werepoorsubstitutesforseparatewomen's
organisationsthat Kollontai and others
were demanding.Further,most of these
bureausexisted only on paper.
Theextentof fearon theideaof separate
women'sorganisationwas suchthatin the
SeventhPartyConferencewhen a special
commissionraised this issue, they were
askedto withdrawalmostentirelywithout
discussion.Theminutesrevealthebureau-
craticandpatriarchalhigh-handedness with
which the issue was tackled. When the
issueof women'sorganisationwas raised
the minutesrecordedthe following con-
versation:"Thechairmansuggeststhatthe
questionbe withdrawnsince none of the
women attending have voting rights
...Sergei suggests that it is necessaryto
create a technical organ for the direction
of agitation among women...Thechair-
man suggests that the questionbe with-
drawn.The questionis withdrawn"(em-
phasis added).
It was only in September 1919 that
women'sdepartmentscoordinatedby the
CentralWomen'sDepartment,Zhenotdel
werefinallyformed.Thiswasaconsequence
of the All RussianWomen's Conference
on 1918 where over a thousandwomen
passeda resolutionfor "aspecialcommis-
sionforpropaganda and agitation among
women" [Holt 1977:120] (emphasis
added).Extremelyinterestingandreveal-
ing is the cautiouswordingof the func-
tions to be performedby the women's
departments. VeraSlutskayainherproposal
for a bureauhadbeen particularin differ-
entiatingbetweenthefunctionof organis-
ing and agitatingclarifyingthe bureaus'
role as the latter.Organisingseemed to
smackinherentlyof 'divisiveness'and in
the 1918 conferenceof women, a further
clausewas addedto ensurethe boundary
Itwasstatedthatthecommis-
ofjurisdiction.
sion was to be the apparatus"forcarrying
outthedecreesof the CentralCommittee"
[Holt1977:12].Henceanattemptto create
an autonomousspacewas subvertedeven
beforethe establishmentof the commis-
sion.Therewerealso instancesof women
issues being underminedin partyconfer-
ences which made the need of the com-
mission more significant.In the eighth
partyconference,theresolutionof women's
workwassoughtto be passedwithoutany
discussion since therewere no disagree-
mentsorobjections.Despiteprotestsfrom
Kollontaitheissueswererelegatedto some
futuresession which never took place.
1408
This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
Given the level of patriarchalbias
againstthe women'sorganisations,it was
only outside the partycongress that the
women'sdepartmentwas finallycreated.
It was the centralcommittee,which rati-
fiedthedecisiontoestablishtheZhenotdel,
and accordedsome freedom of activity
comparedto the earlierbureaus.In this
respect the establishmentof the Inter-
nationalSocialist Women's Conference
and InternationalWomen's Secretariat
also had its influenceon SovietPartyand
government.
Kollontai'spersistencefor the creation
of Zhenotdelreflectstherecognitionof the
patriarchal biasesprevalentin theBolshe-
vik Party,whichrequiredan autonomous
space for women. The women's depart-
mentscouldnot only increasethe scale of
earlieragitationalactivitiesbutcouldtake
up organisationalactivitiesas well. Meet-
ings and conferenceswere held for non-
partywomen.Themostimportantof these
wasthedelegatemeetingswhere'working
and peasant women and housewives
elected their representativeswho for a
periodof several monthsmet to discuss
local problems,attendpolitical lectures
andwereattracted to sectionsof theSoviets,
participatingin its administrativework.'
Efforts to make women politically and
economicallyindependentwerealsomade
and in some areaswomen's departments
set up canteensand crechesto unburden
the workingwomen.TheZhenotdeldeve-
loped into a space where the everyday
formsof oppressionfacedbywomencould
be broughtto the socialist agenda and
became subjectsfor discussion.The dif-
ficultyinbringingwomenintothe-political
process as long as they continuedto be
burdenedwith houseworkand childcare
was felt by partywomen.
ThesituationgrewworseundertheNew
EconomicPolicies7(1921)whentheparty
withdrew funds from most of the
socialisationactivities.Problemssuch as
unemployment andprostitution confronted
manyworkingclass andpeasantwomen.
Zhenotdelbecamea forumforcriticismof
the New EconomicPolicies at thattime.
EvenearlierSofiaSmidovich,a prominent
leaderof Zhenotdelhadgiven a choice to
the partyto eithergive trainedworkersor
close Zhenotdel.Withno partyhelpforth-
coming even at that critical juncture,
Zhenotdelfound their hands tied.
Zhenotdel represented a symbol of
struggle for autonomy,which however
failed to develop into a women's move-
mentfor theirrightsin a socialistsociety.
Economicand PoliticalWeekly April 28, 2001
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
That there existed a difference in the
conception of an autonomous space be-
tween the party and Kollontai is obvious
by the struggle that she and others con-
stantly waged for a separate women's
organisation as also by the questions that
she raised on the various psycho sexual
aspects of the women's question. Her
exploration into the realm of the 'personal'
took her beyond the traditional Marxist
analysis.
She recognised the need to theorise the
specificity of the women's question within
a Marxistframework.Kollontairepresented
a tradition whose demand for autonomy
emerged out of a realisation that it would
provide a space for women oppressed
for centuries to articulate, analyse and
struggle against patriarchaloppression in
relation to other forms of oppression in
society. This perspective also underlies
Kollontai's endeavour to theorise the
sexual and ideological aspects of women's
oppression (along with the economic) in
greater depth.
She recognised the need to analyse and
develop theories of family, love, sexuality
and morality, which had been a source of
women's subordinationfor centuries. The
relation between the different forms of
'personal' institutions and ideology
under different stages of history was
studied and the need to challenge those
was regarded as a simultaneous but sepa-
rate part of socialist struggle. Practice
required not only an analysis of the preva-
lent forms and ideology of oppression but
an alternative vision of the future, which
Kollontai envisioned and put forward in
her writings.
Ill
PersonalIs Political:
Kollontai'sViews
The family had been located as the site
of economic and sexual oppression of
women by Engels and Bebel. By providing
an analysis of the social bases of women's
oppression, Engels questioned the 'nor-
mality' of a biological basis. Emergence
of the monogamous family was to ensure
inheritance for the 'legitimate heirs' for
men in a capitalist society. Some feminists
have critiquedthe anthropologicalevidence
given by Engelson the,emergenceof family
and other institutions. Engels is also
criticised for assuming a natural sexual
division of labour, which weakens the
force of his arguments. Yet his treatise
continues to remain a point of reference
for all streams of feminists analysing
woman's oppression.
Relatingwoman'soppressionwithother
formsof socialoppressionandidentifying
thedeterminingfactorsof exploitationhas
been a significantcontributionof Marx-
ists. But the analysisof the sexual, psy-
chologicalandideologicaldimensionsof
the oppressionas translatedinto the lives
of womenis largelyabsent.Theorisingthe
everydayrealitiesof women's lives has
been the contributionprimarilyof the
radicalfeministtradition.Thatthe theory
of patriarchycannotbe determinedfrom
a predominantlyeconomic analysis of
society but had to provide a theoretical
frameworkfor understandingthe multi-
facetednatureof women'soppression,has
been pointedout.
Issues relatingto sexuality, marriage,
family have often been considered as
secondaryissuesto be addressedonlyafter
thetransformation of economicstructures
in earlyMarxisttheory.In case of Soviet
Russia, even after the revolution,such
issues werelargelyignoredin face of the
primarytaskof reconstruction of stateand
economy. The few mentions made by
Engels,Marxand Bebel on family, love
and monogamywithin capitalistsociety
and their future forms were treated as
'gospels of truth'.8The fact that the so-
called privatedomainsare often the pri-
marysitesof women'soppressionremained
unaddressedby such a perspective.
Kollontaiattemptedto fill the void to
a certainextent.Her writings,especially
consideringtheperiodin whichtheywere
written,werea path-breaking contribution
toMarxistfeministtheory.Underlyingher
writings on psychosexual aspects of
women's lives are the variousroles that
she assumedin Soviethistoryandsociety
- dialecticallyinteractingwitheachother.
As a memberof thegovernment,people's
commissar, director - Zhenotdel, party
memberanda Marxistfeministshe faced
several conflictingsituationswhich she
attempted to addressboththeoreticallyand
practically.
As a Marxist,shebelievedthatworker's
oppressionwas relatedto women's op-
pression. There was a need to jointly
struggle for the socialist revolution.
Kollontai,however,understoodthe need
to addressthecomplexitiesunderlyingthis
generalformulation. Therewas anattempt
to analysegenderas a separatebutrelated
categoryof oppression.Two themesdefine
hertheoryof understanding andresolving
thewoman'squestion.Firstly,she applies
Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2001
This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
the Marxistconceptof labour.Kollontai demolishingthe hypocriticalattitudeto-
starts with the Marxist notion that the wardssinglemothersin pre-revolutionary
essence of a humanbeing is her/hiscapa- society. Childbearingwas separatedfrom
citytocreativelyinteractwithnature.Hence child-rearingas Kollontaithe commissar
any role which deprives woman of her of social welfare,claimedthat"maternity
basic rightto labouris oppressive.Any- does not involvethe motheralwaysbeing
thinghinderingher rightto labourhad to with the child or devotingherselfentirely
be opposed.This generalcritiqueis then to its physical and moral education"
used to analyse the specific oppression [Kollontai1984:145].The responsibility
facedby themother,housewife,prostitute, to educatethe childrenas the memberof
etc, that society has imposedon women the collective also lay with the state not
andto evolve methodsof emancipationin the parents.
a socialist society. It is however essential to analyse the
Secondly,itis thecollective,whichgains perspectiveunderlyingthese efforts.The
primacyin socialistsociety. The brutish, pointof referencefor Kollontai,the com-
short,egoistic and possessive individual missar,is the welfareof the socialiststate
who is the basis of capitalistsociety is andeconomyandensuringadequatelabour
sought to be replacedby the socialised powerfor the Soviet state.Motherhoodis
collective/the Soviet state in this case. not a privatematter,ratherit is a 'social
Equality,solidarity,love andcomradeship obligation'.Thereforethe unburdening of
are to be the determiningfeaturesin a the motherhas to be locatedwithinthis.
socialistsociety. This wouldbe the basis The state may take over the functionsin
of the social relationshipsandinstitutions orderto ensure healthy membersof the
in futuresocieties. Her writingson ques- statebutthereproductiverightsof women
tions of communistmoralityand sexual of childbearingor contraceptiondo not
relationshave to be understoodin this seem to figurein this understanding or if
perspective.The right to labour of an present have to be fitted within social
individualwas integrallyrelatedto thelife requirements.Even as far as abortionis
of the collective or the state.In the case concerned, Kollontai while agreeing in
of Russia,it was theRussianstate,society principleto legalise abortionfelt that it'
and economy which was of paramount wascounterproductive forthelabour-short
importance.All labourhad to contribute Soviet Union. In other words, Kollontai
towardsthe rapiddevelopmentof Soviet keeps the state interests as paramount
economy. withoutadequatelydevelopinga theoryof
rights for women.
Maternityand Housework Furthermore, while seekingto emanci-
patewomen fromthe burdensof mother-
As a commissar of social welfare, hood,she herselfglorifiestherelationship
Kollontaiattemptedto put her theoryon between the mother and the child and
motherhoodinto practice.There was an assertsthe necessity of breastfeeding.
understanding thatchildbearingandrear-
The woman's(second)obligationis to
ing were not just privateconcerns.The breastfeedher baby,only when she has
state had to performan importantrole in donethisthe womanhas the rightto say
the entireprocess.The Sovietstatewas to thatshe hasfulfilledherobligations.The
emancipatethe womanfromthe 'burdens other tasks involved in caring for the
of motherhood'.Decreeswerepassedand youngergenerations canbe carriedoutby
an elaboratesystem of institutionswere the collective. Of course the maternal
soughtto be developedto 'takeover the instinctis strongandthereis no needto
difficulties of childbirth' by state and stifle it. But why shouldthis instinctbe
society.Forthefirsttimeinhistorycreches, narrowlylimitedto the love andcareof
milk kitchens, maternityprovisions at one's own child? Why not allow this
workplace,consultationcentresforpreg- instinct,whichfor the labour republichas
nant women, etc, were established by valuable potential, the opportunity to
the Soviet state.The state was to ensure developvigorouslyandto reachitshighest
the health of the mother and bear the stage,wherethewomannotonlycaresfor
her ownchildrenbuthasatenderaffection
child-rearingfunctions.The motherwas forallchildren added)[Kollontai
(emphasis
'expected' to take care of herself and 1984:144].
give birthto a 'healthybaby'withinfavou-
rable conditions provided by the state. This paragraph sumsup the dilemmaof
The maternityprovisionswere available a Marxistfeministvisionaryofficiatingin
for both single and married women a transitionperiod.The socialist society
1409
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
wouldcreateconditionswhereall women
would avail themselvesof the maternity
benefits,consciouslyconsiderthemselves
a part of the collective and raise them-
selves above the individualaffectionfor
one's own child to extend it to other
children.Butgiven the fact thatKollontai
was addressingthe Soviet woman in a
phaseof transitionwherethe Soviet state
was unableto provideall maternalprovi-
sions and women were suspiciousof the
new ideas,she seems to addressthe issue
only as a practicaladministrator. That in
the processshe glorifiesthe obligationof
motherhoodand breastfeedingdoes not
seem to occur to her.
Furtherher notionof maternityhas no
conceptof choice regardingmotherhood
itself, or says about contraceptionfor
women. It is 'necessary'to performthe
social obligationof reproductionin order
to increasethe workforcefor the nation,
sincethehealthof thecollectiveis themost
important. Whilechild-rearing is separated
fromchildbearing,on occasionswhenthe
state was unableto fulfil its obligations,
the womenwere burdenedwith not only
factorylabourbutalso withthehousehold
work.A notionof sharinghouseworkwith
men in the transition period is found
wanting.Hervisionof statebeingrespon-
sible for the childbearingfunctionsthen
becortes oppressivefor the very women
that it seeks to liberate.
With regard to housework too,
Kollontai'stheory of labour is applied.
Althoughshe rendershouseholdlabouras
unproductive, sherefersto it in thecontext
of capitalistsociety.Ina peasanteconomy,
the 'well-being'of the family depended,
on the women's capacityto producenot
only:the immediateneeds of the family
(cooking, washing) but also things that
could be sold on the marketlike cloth,
thread,butter.And every man whether
peasantor workertriedto find a wife who
had 'handsof gold', for he knew that a
family could not get along without this
'domesticlabour' [Kollontai 1977:155].
In fact Kollontaifeels that this labour
was not only beneficialfor the familybut
alsofortheprosperityofthe nation.Under
capitalism however the production of
commoditiesshiftedto the public sphere
and hence family accordingto Kollontai
was reducedto a consumingunit where
houseworkbecomesrestrictedto cleaning,
cooking, washingand care of linen and
clothingof thefamily.Thesefourtasksshe
feels are not only exhausting,strenuous
and time-consumingbut are of no value
1410
This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to the state and nationaleconomy. Here
again the emphasisis on the creationof
values for the Soviet economy through
productivelabour.
Feminists(fora discussionon domestic
laboursee Delphy 1984,Barrett1980and
Oakley 1974) have rightly criticised
Marxists [Marx 1969:152] for defining
productivelabouronlyasthatlabourwhich
hasexchangevalue(notusevalue),creates
surplusvalue and has a directrelationto
capital,since this understanding devalues
and delegitimisesthe significanceof do-
mestic labour performed by women.
Kollontaitoofollowsthesameframework.
(fn Marx,on ProductiveLabourAs Marx
puts it, from the viewpoint of capital
"Productive Labour...iswagelabourwhich
exchanged against the variable part of
capital(thepartof the capitalthatis spent
on wages)reproducesnotonly thispartof
the capital(or the valueof its own labour
power),but in additionproducessurplus
value for the capitalist...Onlythat wage
labouris productivewhichproducescapi-
tal."Delphyrightlypointsout thatwhile
Marxistsrecognisethe exploitationin the
industrialmodeof production,theyfail to
look at the family system.
The family or the domestic mode of
productionis basedon the unpaidlabour
of the wife and createsantagonisticrela-
tions of productionbetweenthe husband
andwife.Thisis thebasisof thepatriarchal
exploitationwherethemenaretheexploit-
ers.Hence,it wasnotthenatureof produce
that determineswhetherthe labourwas
productiveor unproductive,ratherit was
the relationsof production,which deter-
mined the status of the labour.Women
provided the unpaid labour within the
frameworkof universaland personalre-
lationshipof marriageandthisconstituted
a relationshipof domesticslavery.Thefact
that the same labourwhen performedin
the marketis consideredproductiveand
has exchangevaluereflectsthe concealed
value of the domestic labour. Marxists
neverconsidereddomesticlabouras con-
tributingto production,as it was believed
thatundercapitalismthe familyceasedto
be productive. Hence domestic labour
was said to be contributingto reproduc-
tion (of labourpower- daily,generation
and human)which was seen as separate
from production.
Butdespitetheselimitations,whatmust
be appreciatedis the fact that Kollontai
was one of the foremosttheoriststo ad-
dress the question of domestic labour.
(fn Thedomesticlabourdebatetookplace
Economicand Political Weekly April 28, 200t
only in the 1960s.)Althoughshe failedto
go beyond the Marxistunderstandingof
productivelabour,given the time she was
writing,her attemptto analysethe issue
itself;wasan extremelyimportantcontri-
bution.Kollontai'sdifferentiation between
the everydaydrudgeryof the fourendless
tasks from the earlier 'creative'tasks is
also significant.This is morea critiqueof
the natureof tasks ratherthandevaluing
the work of women.-Aboutthe natureof
taskssherightly\argues, "evenif a working
womanwereto give a thousandyears,she
would still have to begin everydayfrom
the beginning.There would always be a
new layerof dustto be removedfrom-the
mantelpiece,her husbandwould always
come in hungryandher childrenbringin
mudin theirshoes"[Kollontai1977:255].
With regardto both child-rearingand
housekeeping,Kollontaiobservesthatthe
process of socialisationwas not new. In
the capitalistsociety these were already
being transferredto the public sphere.
Creches,schoolskindergartens hadalways
been availableto the rich. So were the
restaurants andthelaundries.Itis onlythat
undersocialism the workingclass seeks
to unburdenthewomenfromtheseoppres-
sive forms of work by opening public
diningrooms,communalkitchensandcloth
mendingcentres.The vision underlying
thatwas"thefourcategoriesof housework
aredeemedto extinctionwith the victory
of communism"[Kollontai1977:255].
Sexual Relations
and Communist Morality
The family had performedeconomic
functionsundercapitalism.Withthe state
attemptingto take over the functionsof
housekeeping andchildcare,whatremained
accordingto Kollontaiwere the relations
betweenthe sexes. Sexualrelationshada
close link with social strugglesin society.
Kollontai criticised both the bourgeois
notions,whichadvocatednon-interference
in theso-calledprivaterealmas also those
socialists who believed that such ques-
tions could be dealt with, afterthe com-
plete reorganisation of society. For
Kollontaidealing with the psychosexual
realmwas simultaneouswith the process
of social reconstruction.
"Why has the fact been ignored that
throughouthistory one of the constant
featuresof social struggle has been the
attemptto change the relationshipsbe-
tween the sexes, and the type of moral
codes that determinethese relationships,
and that the way personalrelations are
organisedin a certainsocialgrouphashad
a vital influenceon the outcome of the
strugglebetweenhostile social classes?"
[Kollontai1977:240].
Tracingthehistoryof marriage,Kollontai
explains how the women's oppressive
situationwasbasedon anideologyof love
used to justify changing forms of mar-
riage/family.Throughout historytherewere
materialconsiderationsthat determined
marriage.In ancienttimes,respectfor the
kinshipties andcollective materialinter-
ests dominatedin determiningmarriage.
Underfeudalism,familybusinessinterests
werethebasisof marriagebut.for the first
time a theoryof platoniclove for a 'lady'
alsoemergedasanincentiveforthe'knight'
to commitactsof bravery.However,it was
undercapitalismthat monogamouslove
was upheld as the basis of marriage.
Bourgeois love, of course, demanded
women's undividedlove and loyalty to
ensureinheritancewithinthefamilywhile
men could exploit women in the parallel
institutionof prostitution.
For Kollontaithe ideology of love in
capitalistsociety was both a patriarchal
ideology and individualisticin nature.In
the capitalistsociety she identified two
characteristicfeaturesof the psychology
of modemman.(a) the idea of possessing
the marriedpartnerand (b) the belief that
the sexes are unequal,that they are of
unequalworthineveryday,ineverysphere,
includingthe sexual sphere.
Accordingto Kollontaithe crudeindi-
vidualismwhichwasthebasisof capitalist
society created a sense of loneliness
which made one yearn for the "finding
for themselvesthroughanotherperson,a
means to a largershare of spiritualand
physicalpleasure"[Kollontai1977:240].
The urgeto overcomethis lonelinesswas
so strongthatthe it resultedin a desireto
own the very soul of the other such that
it evenbecameoppressive.It was also this
feeling of 'possessiveness'thatpervaded
the capitalist society and provided an
illusion of searching for the 'ideal
partner'. This 'individualpsyche' was
worsenedby theinequalityassumedin the
relationship.
Kollontai'snotionof patriarchyis con-
scious of not only the actual sexual and
economic oppressionbut also the ideo-
logicalcreationof women.The womanis
not only consideredthe propertyof the
husbandbut is definedstereotypicallyas
havingno personalityof herown. "Weare
used to evaluating a woman not as a
Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2001
This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
personalitywithindividualgratitudesand The concept of comradeshipand soli-
failings irrespectiveof her physical and darity would be the key elements in a
emotional experience, but only as an socialist society. In capitalist society,
appendageof a man.Thisman,thehusband wingless Eros (sexual attraction)existed
or the lover, throwsthe light of his per- outsidemarriagein theformof momentary
sonality over the woman, and it is this sexualencounters.In a workerscollective
reflectionandnot the womanherselfthat there would be no limits on the Eros.
we consider the true definition of her WingedEros(sexual attractionwithsen-
emotionalandmoralmakeup.In the eyes sitivityandmutualrespect)wouldbe able
of societythe personalityof a mancan be to flourish. It was unimportantwhether
more.easilyseparatedfromhis actionsin the relationshipwas temporaryor perma-
the sexual sphere.The personalityof a nent,whatmatteredwas that'it was based
woman is judged almost exclusively in on equality,mutualrecognitionof rights
terms of her sexual life" [Kollontai of the other and comradely sensitivity,
1977:245]. of ability to listen and understandthe
Kollontairealises that mere economic inner workings of the loved person
independencewill not itself lead to the [Kollontai 1977:245]. While these were
emancipationof women. In fact there is the basis of sexual relations,they were
a recognitionof the autonomythatpatri- subordinateto the concept of solidarity
archalideas and practiceshave vis-a-vis within the collective. To ensurethat the
theeconomicstructuresof society.Thisis unitof two lovedpersonsdoesnotbecome
hintedwhen she writes, "Onlya change exclusive,Kollontaiemphasisedtheneed
in the economicrole of women, and her to uphold the interests of the collective
independentinvolvementin production, by creating inner bonds between the
can and will bring aboutthe weakening members.
of these mistakenandhypocriticalideas" Kollontaiis oftenwrongly'credited'or
[Kollontai 1977:245]. ratherdenouncedfor the glass of water
In otherwords,althougheconomic in- theory that is consideringsex to be as
dependenceis a primaryneed it would naturalas drinkinga glass of water.It is
only lead to a weakeningof patriarchal on this basis that she was accused of
ideas and not their elimination.Special propagatingfree sex and perpetuating
effortshaveto be madeto struggleagainst sexualanarchy.A closelookatherwritings
patriarchy. revealsthatthis is a cleardistortionof her
views. Firstly, her concept of new mo-
Morality for New Society rality is a response to the sexual crisis
in Soviet society. Soviet society experi-
Kollontaihencesees thesexualrelations enced various forms of relationships
as sufferingfromthreefactors- extreme duringthe early 1920s.
egoism, possessing the marriedpartner Kollontai(1977) expressedthe need to
and inequalityamong the sexes. These makeit an issue of debateso as to create
accordingto herhaveto undergoa radical a moralitybasedon egalitarianvalues."In
transformationto change the individual the New World the accepted norms of
psyche along side the structuralchanges sexualrelationswill probablybe basedon
in society. Her theory of communist free, healthyandnaturalattraction(with-
moralityis an attemptto envision a mo- out distortionandexcesses) andon trans-
ralityfora newsociety.Post-revolutionary formedEros."Hence for Kollontai,it is
Russiasawanemergenceof variousforms for the sake of the collective,*thatthe
of sexual relationshipsand while most ideologyof theworkingclasshadto create
communistleaders defined it as sexual a moralitythatwould emergealong with
anarchy; Kollontai's response was to the socialist struggle though the actual
createa debateon thequestionof morality forms it would take, was left undefined.
for the workerscollective. Since it was a Formswould only emerge in the course
phase of transition,it was essential to of struggle.
outlinethe basisof a new moralityin face It was Kollontai'sideason sexualrela-
of the critiqueof the capitalistsociety in tions thatbecamea majorsourceof criti-
the psychosexualrealm.ForKollontai,in cism within the Soviet party. Although
otherwords,it wouldbe a society where therewere some writingson the subject
there would be equalityin relationships, by others, they were not as radically
where freedomin personalrelationships differentfromtheanalysisof Marx,Engels
became a fact and the principleof com- and Bebel. Kollontai had tried to raise
radeshipovertookinequality. the issue of the personalrealm simulta-
1411
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

neously with other 'political' issues like
class struggleand social reconstruction.
No attemptwas made by the otherparty
leaders to systematically analyse the
relationbetweenthe personalrealmand
women's oppression,whichwas themost
significant contribution of Kollontai.
Ironically,itwasfromtheCentralWomen's
thatshe oftenfacedcriticism.
Department
Vinogradskaya a young woman who
workedin the departmentwas extremely
criticalof Kollontai.Alix Holt(1977:240)
writes"Vinogradskaya herselfis convinced
the Marxismand sex are mutuallyexclu-
sive, and thatin a time of social turmoil,
'multifacetedlove' is not on the agenda,
theideathatsexuallove canbe 'forits own
sake' and is not connectedwith the birth
of children should be vigorously de-
nounced".It is perhaps in Kollontai's
unorthodoxwritingson the realmof the
personalthatone can locate the cause of
her political downfall and the amnesia
towardsher writingson the part of the
official recordkeepersof Soviet history.
Conclusion
Kollontaiwas a prominentleaderof the
Russian Social Democratic Women's
Movement.She was even the directorof
Zhenotdel(CentralWomen'sDepartment)
for a brief period.Her writingswere an
analysisof thevariousaspectsof women's
oppressionand constituteda preliminary
attempttointegrateMarxismwithPsycho-
sexual analysisand the critiqueof patri-
archy.Despitethese insights,her limita-
tions in terms of the issues raised by
contemporarywomen's movement are
numerous.Kollontaifailedto developher
ideas on autonomyand specificityof the
women'squestionevenwithintheMarxist
framework that she followed. She
overemphasisedon the larger interests
of the state/economyover the rights of
individuals, groups and communities.
Definitions of productive labour were
uncriticallyaccepted, and women were
almostconsideredas agentsof reproduc-
tion for the welfareof the economy and
society.The conceptof women's choices
andrightsdid not come up adequately.In
a sense heranalysisandunderstanding of
women'sexperiencewerefittedwithinthe
requirementsof the Soviet economy be-
lying the significanceof her own percep-
tiveanalysisonvariousaspectsof women's
oppression.
But whatis moresignificantis thatshe
wasa symbolof strugglewithintheSoviet
1412
This content downloaded from 192.107.39.19 on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:34:49 UTC
statewhich was uniquein itself in giving
manyequal rightsto womenfor the first
time in worldhistory.At the presenthis-
torical juncture, as Marxist theory and
practice'attemptsto criticallyevaluateits
history,it has to rediscoverthe views of
women revolutionarieslike Alexandra
Kollontai. While the Soviet state took
severalprogressivestepstoliberatewomen,
its inability to identify the multifaceted
dimensions of patriarchythat govern
women's lives has to be recognised.
Kollontai'sattemptin suchcircumstances
was a radicaldevelopmentin the Marxist
traditiontowardstheunderstanding of some
unexploredspheresof women's lives.
Issues of the autonomy of women's
questionandwomen'sorganisations within
a Marxistanalysisand movement:and a
Marxist feminist approachto women's
oppressioncontinues to be subjects of
debate and discussion. The relationship
betweenMarxismandFeminismhasbeen
a, tenuous one. Socialist feminist have
attempted to integrate feminism and
Marxismandsomehaveevengivenupthe
efforts in the process. The fact remains
however that given the continuous
marginalisationand oppressionof large
sectionsof society,thereis a requirement
for largeralliancesamongthe oppressed.
This would need the resolutionof ques-
tionsof autonomyandprimacyin analyses
and practice,which Kollontairaisedand
whichcontinueto be raisedwithinMarxist
theoryand practice.[M
Notes
[I thank Sarah Joseph, my supervisor, Uma
Chakravarty and Sanjay for their critical
comments.]
1 Joan Kelly drew attention to, in her path-
breaking article 'Did Women Have A Oakley,Ann (1974): TheSociology of Housework,
Renaissance?'
2 Kollontai was a part of the Zimmerwaldleft Scott, Joan Wallach (1988): In S Jay Kleinberg
- a section within the second International,
which was opposed to the war.
3 Kollontaiopposed Lenin's views on the peace
treatyattheend of the war.Afterthe firstworld
war she resigned or was removed from the
Commissar of Women's Welfare.
4 Party members including Kollontai and
Trotsky demanded the restructuringof the
entire system of administration. They
challenged bureaucratisationand asked for
more participation of proletarians in the
decision-making.
5 This term has been used by Nalini Nayak in
IlinaSen's SpacewithintheStruggle:Women's
Participation in People's Movements, Kali
for Women, New Delhi, 1990, p 140.
6 Tony Cliff gives detailed account of the
bourgeois women's movementof thatperiod.
7 In 1921, New Economic Policies were
introducedin responseto economic crisis that
Soviet Russia was facing. Private managers
Economicand Political Weekly April 28, 2001
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and entrepreneurs were given powers in
industrialactivity to achieve faster economic
growth. The workers' opposition came as a
response to that.
Lenin as the leaderof the partyhad recognised
the need to mobilise women and was sup-
portive of women's department for attract-
ing them to the party but failed to recognise
the need to develop an autonomous space
which could be helpfulin developinga Marxist
perspective on the women's question.
8 I have been told that at the evenings arranged
for reading and discussion with working
women, sex and marriage problems come
first...It is said 'that a pamphlet on the sex
question written by a communist authoress
from Vienna enjoys the greatest popularity.
What rot that booklet is! The workers read
what is right in it long ago in Bebel...It seems
to me thatthis superabundanceof sex theories,
which for the most part are mere hypotheses
and often quite arbitraryones, stems from a
personalneed... There is no room for it in the
partyamongtheconscious,fightingproletariat.
Extractfrom conversationswith ClaraZetkin,
Lenin, op cit, p 10.
References
Barrett, Michelle (1980): Women's Oppression
Today:ProblemsinMarxistFeministAnalysis,
Verso, London.
Cliff, Tony: Class Struggle and Women's
Liberation: 1640 to the Present Today,
Bookmarks, London.
Delphy, Christine (1984): Close to Home: A
MaterialistAnalysis of Women's Oppression,
Massachussetts Press, Amherst.
Holt, Alix (1977): Selected Writingsof Alexandra
Kollontai(translatedandcommentaries)Alison
and Busby, London.
Kollontai, Alexandra(1977a): 'Communismand
the Family' in Holt, op cit, p 155.
- (1977b): 'Sexual Relations and the Class
Struggle' in Holt, op cit, p 240.
- (1984): Selected Speeches and Articles of
Kollontai, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
- 'Make Way for the Winged Eros: A Letter to
Working Youth' in Holt, op cit, p 291.
Lenin,V I (1965): OntheEmancipationof Women,
Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Marx, Karl (1969): Theories of Surplus Value,
Vol 1, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Martin Robertson, Oxford.
(ed), Retrieving Women'sHistory: Changing
Perceptions of the Role of Womenin Politics
and Society, Unesco Press, Paris, p 10.
e ujiicat cnonumv e a
Communicalion ReuotuUion
Editors:RobertW McClesney,Ellenl
Meiskins Wood&JolhnBellanmy Foster
Pages: 250; Rs. 150 (PB); Rs. 250 (HB)
[PostageFreel DeailsinEPWofl3.1.2001 (P. 95)
All paymentsby MO/DD only,payable to:
CORNERSTONE PUBLICATIONS
P.O. HIJLI CO-OPERATIVE
KHARAGPUR-721306, W.B.