25

5 comments

Thanks for posting this!

I've seen her mentioned here before and made a note to do more research, but looks like the work has been done for me. She's a very inspiring figure and I'm lamenting the fact that our school systems exclude women like this.

I can tell you all about Robespierre or Thomas Cromwell, but I can't name more than a handful of American women who had an impact on our country's history (I know she's not American, my point was that in American schools we learn WAY more about European men than we do women from our own country).

We basically only learned about Betsy Ross (🙄) and Sacagawea. No wait—we spent roughly 10-15 mins learning about Harriet Tubman as well. Non-American women we learned about were Marie Antoinette (which was packed full of lies and propaganda to make her look ditzy and sociopathic) and Marie Curie (most of that unit the teacher emphasized her husband was also a scientist, they worked together on everything, and he should be getting equal credit for "her" discovery, complete with air quotes. Yes it was a male teacher).

It's utterly shameful and it leads directly to the idea that women haven't contributed anything to civilization (except for, you know—literally making people).

Thanks again!

She criticized bourgeois feminists for prioritizing political goals, such as women's suffrage, that would provide political equality for bourgeois women but would do little to address the immediate conditions of working-class women, and was further distrustful that bourgeois champions of feminism would continue to support their working class counterparts after succeeding in their struggle for "general women's" rights, as exemplified by the following quote:

"Class instinct – whatever the feminists say – always shows itself to be more powerful than the noble enthusiasms of "above-class" politics. So long as the bourgeois women and their [proletarian] "younger sisters" are equal in their inequality, the former can, with complete sincerity, make great efforts to defend the general interests of women. But once the barrier is down and the bourgeois women have received access to political activity, the recent defenders of the "rights of all women" become enthusiastic defenders of the privileges of their class, content to leave the younger sisters with no rights at all. Thus, when the feminists talk to working women about the need for a common struggle to realise some "general women’s" principle, women of the working class are naturally distrustful."

It's crazy how true this is. Liberal feminism is truly a movement by and for the elite.

Kollontai is known for her advocacy of free love. However, this does not mean that she advocated casual sexual encounters; indeed, she believed that due to the inequality between men and women that persisted under socialism, such encounters would lead to women being exploited, and being left to raise children alone.

That's basically exactly what happened. Can she see the future?!

I'm stunned by how relevant her work still is in 2022! All her critiques of "Bourgeois Feminism" (Libfems) still ring true. Her work is available here for free in English if you want to read through it: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/index.htm

There's also historian Kristen Ghodsee's "AK 47" podcast where she goes through the readings and provides context/thoughts about how they apply today. I've gotten a fair bit through the podcast and love it!: https://kristenghodsee.com/podcast

Thanks for the recommendation, I will check out that podcast!

Thanks for posting that bit - the very term “free love” makes my skin crawl, given what happened, and I’m glad to know that’s not what she was talking about.