@ O

Vancouver Women's Caucus
Discussion Paper

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF WOMEN'S LIPERATION
By

damages Benston

The “woman question" is generally’ ignored in analyses of" tthe class‘ structure:

of society. This is so becalise, on the one hand, classes are generally defined yy :
their relation to the means of production and; on the other hand, women are Mot.
supposed: to have any unique relationship with the means of production. The aay

seems instead’ to cut’ across all: classes; cone speaks of working=class women 4 middle=-

class: women, etc. The status of women is clearly inferior to that of mea,” but -an-

alysis: of this condition usually’ falls into: discussing socialization, ps yonology ; *
interpersonal. relationships ,. or the role of marriage: aS a‘social institvut?on- 2a
these, however, the ‘primary factors? In arguing that the roots of the secondary
status of ‘women are.in' fact economic, it can‘be shown that women’as’a group do in
fact have a definite relationship to the means°of production and that this’ relation~
Ship’ is different from that of men. The personal, “psychological factors then follow
from this. special relationship to Poe anda ¢hange in the’ latter’ will’ be
necessary: (but not sufficient) condition for changing the firsti: 3 Tf this special»
relationship of women is accepted, the analysis of the ‘situation ‘o£ women fits nat-
urally: into a class, analysis’ of society.
Lo ine starting point. for discussion of | classes. ina eapt andor society is the
distinction between those. who own thé means oF: production and Sess whe selay ther
labor: power’ for a wage. As Emest Mandsl says:*.-
_ = “The: proletarian ‘eondition is, ina nutshell, the cack) of ACCESS
tothe means of production or méans of ‘subsistence which, in a socicty
_ O£ generalized commodity production, foreés the proletarian to’sell’
hig labor power: “In exchange for this labor power he receives a wage -... -
which’ thenrenables him’te acquire the means of consumption Snes lane ee,
for satisfying his own needs aid those of his family. aM
This is the’ structural definition of wage earner, the mol etarian.
From it necessarily flows a certain relationship to his‘work, ‘to the
products. of his work, and‘to his overall situation in society, which
can be: sutimarized bythe catéhsord! alienation. But there does not follow
‘from this Structural definiticn any necessary conclusions ‘as to nS:
level ‘of -his» consumption. eethe extent of his ‘needs ; Xo) ae ate degree:
which he-can satisfy them. a
' We lack a corresponding ‘struct aval aerinition of women. what is nesded, first
isinot a complete examination’ of the symmtoms-of the secondary status of women but
instead a statement of the materia. conditions in capitalist (and. other) societies
which define the group “women”. Upon these conditions’ are built the speci. fic super-
structures which we know.’ An interesting passage from Mande oune the way to such
a definiticnt”: -,
The commodity. .is A product created to be! exchanged on the*mark-
et, as opposed to one which has been made for direct: consumption. Eve pe
commodity: ‘must have: both a .use-vatue and an exchange-value.
'- $- Ttmust‘have a use-value or else nobody would buy’ it.:.. AX cor mode
ity without a use~-value’ to anyone would consequently be unsalable,
would constitute useless production, would have ‘no’ 2. aeaienptl
precisely because it had no use-value.
-.’. On the other hand, every product which has use-vaiue: uses not’
necessarily have exchange-value. It' has. an eee eae only to the -

ne

_ ™ Notes will be found at the end of. the article.