Strikes, birth control, and women's suffrage: an examination of 20th century anti-capitalist feminism

The social movements of the 20th century were created by actors with a variety of different ideological commitments and goals. Due to the clashing beliefs of many of the historical figures who participated in these social movements, many are under-discussed and ultimately overshadowed by those deemed acceptable of praise for their actions and beliefs. One social movement where this is most apparent is the feminist movement. A newfound understanding of the world propelled thousands of women to dedicate their time and organizing efforts towards the liberation of women. This took many forms, but of the most well-known is the Women's Suffrage movement. In this examination, I intend to posit the idea that the feminism of the early 20th century is undertheorized, and thus, under-discussed. I intend to show that Women's Suffrage was one piece of activism that is a part of a larger picture of early 20th-century feminism. I further intend to argue that while there are great works of literature surrounding this time and this specific social movement of mobilized feminists, the analysis done does not offer a proper analysis of the actions of non-liberal feminists, as they are analyzed primarily through a liberal feminist lens.

ii ABSTRACT The social movements of the 20th century were created by actors with a variety of different ideological commitments and goals. Due to the clashing beliefs of many of the historical figures who participated in these social movements, many are under-discussed and ultimately overshadowed by those deemed acceptable of praise for their actions and beliefs. One social movement where this is most apparent is the feminist movement. A newfound understanding of the world propelled thousands of women to dedicate their time and organizing efforts towards the liberation of women. This took many forms, but of the most well-known is the Women’s Suffrage movement. In this examination, I intend to posit the idea that the feminism of the early 20th century is undertheorized, and thus, under-discussed. I intend to show that Women’s Suffrage was one piece of activism that is a part of a larger picture of early 20th-century feminism. I further intend to argue that while there are great works of literature surrounding this time and this specific social movement of mobilized feminists, the analysis done does not offer a proper analysis of the actions of non-liberal feminists, as they are analyzed primarily through a liberal feminist lens. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION 1 FEMINISM AND THE US LABOR MOVEMENT: 6 WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE 14 BIRTH CONTROL AND WAGE SLAVERY 24 CONCLUSION 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY 36 1 INTRODUCTION One of the tools an historian can use in their journey to create a new historical narrative is social movements. Mass movements can tell an historian a lot about a specific area based on what the demands of the particular social movement are, how these demands were met (if at all), and how the general public reacts to the movement. Mass movements, regardless of their success, tend to shed much needed light on the conditions faced by those participating in the movement. While uncomfortable for many, mass movements allow activists to highlight inequalities within the given society. Societal inequalities can stem from a variety of different reasons, such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic background. Because there are a variety of different reasons inequalities begin in the first place, they are a variety of different ways in which activists seeking to improve them approach the solution. With a mass workers movement, for instance, activists will likely choose to focus on the material conditions faced by the workers, as well as the types of material incentives these workers are likely to respond best to. In the case of women’s rights during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the ways in which the societal inequalities women faced were tackled by feminists depended not only on the type of feminism, but also on the pre-existing material reality the feminists faced daily. Due to the fact that feminism is discussed and advocated for in a variety of different ways, there is a division among historians regarding what feminism is and how it came to be. Some historians have argued that feminism can be advocated for and explained by discussing personal experience. In the early 20th century, much of this personal experience comes down to mistreatment on the basis of gender. The women 2 whose experiences are discussed are those who tend to be from middle-class backgrounds in which they received a proper education, however, did not receive the freedoms their male counterparts did specifically in political life.1 On the other end, there are historians which argue that ‘modern’ feminism came from material necessity. These historians argue that the industrialized workforce demanded women enter into some industries and though these women were contributing to the economic necessities of their families, they were not seeing significant material gains, which led to the demand for economic liberation for women. This meant they had to work alongside their male counterparts in order to achieve their goals, as women previously did not account for a significant portion of the industrialized workforce. When analyzing the lives of the latter kinds of feminists and possible reasons for their erasure, two main arguments emerge among historians. The first come from historians who primarily emphasize liberal feminists and their work. These historians argue that while feminists focused on material conditions are revered in left-wing circles as being important figures worth of discussion and analysis, these feminists do not focus enough on the problems that uniquely plague women, focusing too much on issues related to class and thereby failing to recognize that women’s liberation can only come from improving issues solely related to gender relations.2 The second argument is one unrelated to them being incomplete in their feminism, rather it suggests these women were too radical in their approach. Historians who utilize this argument claim that due to 1 Annelise Orleck, Common Sense and a Little Fire: Women and the Working-Class Politics in the United States, 1900-1965, (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2017), 31-35. 2 Catherine Fosl, “Life and Times of A Rebel Girl: Jane Speed and the Alabama Communist Party,” The Southern Historian 18, no. 1 (1997): 45-65. 3 the adverse feelings toward communism in America, these women were long ignored for their taboo beliefs regarding capitalism. They were, in essence, forgotten and left behind by historians in the 20th century due to the Red Scare and its effects on academia.3 In this analysis, I intend to argue that regardless of the reasons for the silencing of these anti-capitalist feminists, historians moving forward must utilize anti-capitalist critiques in their analysis of anti-capitalist feminists in order to fully represent the scope and aim of their feminist endeavors, as they have been underutilized in the past. For the purposes of this examination, two general types of feminism will be analyzed and referred to as “anti-capitalist” and “liberal” feminism. Anti-capitalist feminists will be those who adhere to Socialist, Marxist, and Anarchist teachings and tend to hold the inherent belief that capitalism is not compatible with feminism due to the inherent oppression done to the working-class by the capitalist or ruling class. Liberal feminists do not reject capitalism outright. They are less interested in producing a new system, and more focused on reform within existing liberal democracy, as they tend to believe that the structures of liberal democracy are capable of fostering the potential to end the oppression of women.4 One way in which historians can examine inequalities throughout history is by utilizing the Marxist theory of dialectical materialism. Marxist dialectics posits the idea that real world conditions in terms of class, labor, and socioeconomics are more important in studying the history of humanity than are the ideals connected to the 3 Walter T. Howard, “Radicals Not Wanted: Communists and the 1929 Wilkes-Barre Silk Mill Strikes,” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 69, no. 3 (2003): 344, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27774418. 4 Nancy Arden McHugh, Feminist Philosophies A-Z, (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2007), Adobe Digital Edition, page 7 and 72. 4 Hegelian dialectic idea of human experience being dependent on what is going on in the minds of people. The Hegelian dialectic can be understood as: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis. For Hegel, these are all thoughts, which upon reflection, become negated. In normal logic terms, a double negative takes you back to the original thesis, however Hegel believed that synthesis was a way to overcome and preserve the preceding stages, leading to a better, more rational mind.5 This idea came about because Marx believed that within the material conditions faced by people throughout history, there are always contradictions which leads to the social organization of people in order to solve these contradictions and inequalities. Marx argues that people from a variety of different academic disciplines such as economists, historians, and philosophers, focus in on the wrong things. For instance, “Economists express the relations of bourgeois production, the division of labour, credit, money, etc., as fixed, immutable, eternal categories. M. Proudhon, who has these ready-made categories before him, wants to explain to us the act of formation, the genesis of these categories, principles, laws, ideas, thoughts.”6 Here, we can see that these categories are ones still often studied as a focus for many disciplines. However, Marx goes on to say that while the discussion of these categories may be important, the true importance lies in their conception, which came directly from material conditions. Marx is exhibiting his belief that these ideals studied by so many, 5 LLyod Spencer and Andrezej Krauze, Hegel For Beginners, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Icon Books, 2012; Marxists Internet Archive), https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm. 6 Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy: Chapter 2: The Metaphysics of Political Economy (Paris, 1847; Marxists Internet Archive, 1999), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/povertyphilosophy/ch02.htm 5 and at the center of Hegelian dialectics, are merely a piece of what he believes truly drives humanity towards change. With Marx’s theory in mind, we can take a look at how this theory plays into the social movements that occur throughout history. This can be exhibited through the foundation of Marxist dialectics: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. While these are the same terms used in Hegelian dialectics, Marx uses the terms and basically turns them on their head, by suggesting that ideals cannot solve the plight of the working-class. Human history can be explained, according to Marx, by thinking about the events in cyclical terms. A simplified version of human history can be explained through this process. In the case of Marx, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis are terms used to describe this cyclical history. In every case, Marx sees that a lower class of people, will ultimately partake in a form of class struggle, which results in a new version of the cycle. Understanding the dialectic is an important part of understanding historical Marxist figures because they are not operating under the same philosophical understanding that liberal figures tend to follow. This is because a Marxist is fighting for the next version of antithesis, whereas the liberal figures are fighting to keep and/or repair existing ideals. Liberals inevitably repair the superstructure of a society, or seek to change, expand, or influence it in a meaningful way. Because Marxists are not focused on ideals, rather material actions, they are not concerned with this. They are concerned with taking physical actions which propel workers toward the common goal of socialism. This is why Marxists advocate for the end of capitalism, whereas liberal thinkers tend 6 advocate for changes to or upholding of the superstructure which reinvigorates the material status quo of capitalism. 7 Women found themselves in the material situation of having to perform household and emotional labor in order to keep life in the home up to par. In order to effectively change the condition of the woman while utilizing both Marxism and feminism, one must examine the ways in which women’s material conditions can be improved. FEMINISM AND THE US LABOR MOVEMENT: The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was founded in 1905 after hundreds of outraged socialists and other radical trade unionists gathered to discuss their frustration with the American Federation of Labor (AFL). This frustration grew from the AFL’s refusal to allow unskilled workers to participate in craft unions as well as their reluctance to call for the dismantling of capitalism.8 While there have been many notable women involved in the IWW, one of the of the most outspoken and, at times, controversial women of the IWW was Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. Flynn was born to socialist parents in 1890, so it is not hard to imagine where she got her revolutionary fervor. When she was 15 years old, she delivered her first speech called “What Socialism Will Do for Women” to the Harlem Socialist Club. The speech focused on the social improvements women would experience as a result of socialism, which included: “… the establishment of economic independence of women and the freedom of mothers from dependence on individual men, the social care of children, and the right of every 7 Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Third edition, 2009. 8 Craft unionism refers to the organization of trade unions on the basis of a particular craft or trade. This is particularly common among building trades, i.e., painters and tapers’ union, carpenters’ union, plasterer’s union, etc. 7 woman to an education, to work and to participate in government; to be a wife, mother, worker and citizen; to enter the arts and sciences and all the professions”.9 It is clear that Flynn, even from a young age, is focused on materialist analyses of the world, specifically when thinking about working class people who do not have the time to sleep, let alone improve social relations surrounding gender and race. She acknowledges the fact that women are left with unequal ways to participate in society and this puts them at a disadvantage materially. Women did not receive the same education en masse that men did, and were therefore barred from many professions. Further, women were expected to take on a motherly role in their lives, and while their having a job may have been important to the success of the family, her primary role would always be seen a mother and wife. Flynn understood that material goods are much more meaningful to the average worker because, especially in the early 20th century, the average worker lived a hellish existence consumed entirely by a job that worked them too hard, in terrible conditions, for pay that was not worth the labor they were forced to put in to earn their check. Because Flynn was living in a time where capitalism had begun to progress beyond that which Marx was describing in his theory of dialectical materialism, the material conditions of the American woman began to shift. No longer were all women confined to the home. Women and children were a necessary part of the textile industry from its conception during the Industrial Revolution, and as the industries of the United 9 "Elizabeth Gurley Flynn." Fifth Estate, vol. 5, no. 22, March 4-17, 1971, p. 14. Archives of Sexuality and Gender, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/OVYQPP637288220/AHSI?u= marriottlibrary&sid=AHSI&xid=b2b4e1d0. Accessed 13 Feb. 2020. 8 States continued to grow, so did the demand of cheap workers with small hands who were willing to work in terrible, dangerous conditions. When the IWW saw this as an opportunity to organize another industry, women became a more important piece of the picture of the US labor movement. Flynn, recognizing this and being a Marxist feminist, set out to improve the material conditions of the women working in textile mills.10 In 1912, a two-month strike occurred in Lawrence, Massachusetts among textile workers primarily comprised of immigrants. The strike was the result of Massachusetts law which cut mill workers’ hours for a work week from 56 to 54 hours which also, unbeknownst to the workers, cut their pay along with the hours. Flynn went to Lawrence with Bill Haywood to run the strike. While there, they were able to successfully use the children of the workers to gain more widespread sympathy from the surrounding areas and prevent the federal government from breaking the strike without some public outrage. Their strike ended successfully, earning a 20% raise in wages.11 Not only was Flynn successful in meeting some demands, she was also successful in getting women and children involved in the labor movement based on their immediate material needs. For the children, their hunger tugged on the heartstrings of the residents of New England. For their mothers, it was improving their wages and working conditions so that their children did not need to worry about helping their parents earn a living wage. It was not long after Flynn delivered her first speech that the IWW began gaining traction all across the United States, and she became interested in their movement and decided to join them in labor organizing. Flynn became a full-time organizer for the 10 Howard, “Radicals Not Wanted”. 11 Robert E Weir, Workers in America: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO LLC, 2013) 418-420. 9 IWW in 1907 and immediately became invested in this revolutionary labor movement, organizing campaigns among garment workers, restaurant workers, miners, and textile workers around the US. This was an incredible feat for a woman of her age, but it did not come easy. Flynn was arrested ten times during her time as an organizer for the IWW for giving radical speeches in less-than-accepting police jurisdictions, however, she was never criminally charged for her activism, unlike many of her contemporaries. Because she was prone to giving ambitiously radical speeches and causing a stir among police departments, government officials, and capitalisms beneficiaries, Flynn became an iconic figure of the IWW.12 It was Flynn’s ambition, strength, and hard work that ultimately gained her the attention of revolutionary martyr Joe Hill. Hill was also a member and avid organizer for the IWW and wrote a variety of labor songs to instill solidarity among the workers for The Little Red Songbook. One of these songs, entitled, “The Rebel Girl”, was written as a tribute to Flynn and what she represented to the movement.13 Like most other union songs, “The Rebel Girl” features a catchy tune, simple lyrics, a message of solidarity, and in this case, is celebratory of female comrades. The lyrics begin by suggesting that the world is ‘queer’ and full of women bearing many descriptions. The song consists of two verses and the chorus repeated twice. The first verse is about women who clearly do not work and the second is comparing the Rebel girl to these women in order to explain why she is more desirable. To start the song, Hill describes rich women with fine clothes and 12 Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, I Speak My Own Piece: (New York: Masses & Mainstream, Inc., 1955) 102– 03. 13 Marxists Internet Archive, “Elizabeth Gurley Flynn” accessed February 01, 2020, https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/f/l.htm#flynn-elizabeth-gurley 10 jewelry, even comparing them to ‘queens and princesses’. After describing these women, he ends the verse by positing the idea that, “… the only and thoroughbred lady/Is the Rebel Girl”. The chorus serves as the explanation of this by asserting the idea that the Rebel Girl is a “precious pearl” to the working-class because, “She brings courage, pride and joy/To the fighting Rebel Boy”. The Rebel Girl, while serving her purpose as a working person (and, perhaps, mother) has another purpose, but this one is not as hard as all the others. As the last verse says, “Yes, her hands may be hardened from labor/And her dress may not be very fine/But a heart in her bosom is beating/That is true to her class and her kind/And the grafters in terror are trembling/When her spite and defiance she’ll hurl/For the only and thoroughbred lady/Is the Rebel Girl”14 The Rebel Girl is a working-class woman, unconcerned with the particulars of her looks because she is a working woman. She is committed to the working-class and fights for the rights she believes they all deserve. Flynn exemplified what Joe Hill deemed the idea female labor counterpart. She represented the working-class, she fought for the workingclass, and she was determined to improve the material conditions of not only those who were working-class at the time, but also those who came long after her movement dwindled out. The Rebel Girl became an icon of the IWW and although many liberal feminist historians have argued that it perpetuates patriarchal values, the iconography and role she plays in a revolution is worth much more than her aiding her “Rebel Boy”. Flynn was married when she was 16, the Rebel Girl had not yet been invented, and yet, she was a 14 International Workers of the World, The Little Red Songbook, 1915. 11 prominent labor activist. She was raised in a home where her mother did not like doing menial tasks, and she was no different. Flynn did not ride the coattails of her Rebel Boy, she marched to the beat of her own drum, and that is why the Rebel Girl as a labor icon is such a resilient one. These women have an avenue to get involved in activism, of course many of them have families at home, but that did not deter their involvement. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was not going to let these women miss out on an opportunity to take charge and make demands to improve their lives. Flynn was hyper-dedicated to the cause and was willing to take many risks in order to ensure the success of the movement for worker liberation. One of the more controversial methods Flynn advocated for was that of workplace sabotage. Workplace sabotage is utilized for a variety of reasons, but perhaps the most important of these is to ensure a reduction in production. In the pamphlet she wrote for the IWW entitles, Sabotage, Flynn proffers that sabotage is a necessity in the class war. Further, she argues that morality does not matter in this case because, “If the workers consider sabotage necessary, that in itself makes sabotage moral. Its necessity it its excuse for existence.”15 Flynn posits that because the workers view it necessary at all, those judging it on the basis of immorality are wrong to do so. The workers are sabotaging production in order to show that they are not going to take the harsh treatment from their employers lying down. They are going to ensure that their employer suffers for the lack of attention their demands receive. Workplace sabotage is not the solution to worker exploitation, rather, a tactic used by workers to get that exploitation recognized by more people. It is about 15 Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Sabotage: The Conscious Withdrawal of the Workers' Industrial Efficiency, (Chicago, Illinois: I.W.W. Publishing Bureau, 1917). 12 creating pressure against the capitalist class in order to have worker leverage. One issue with sabotage though, is that unless it is a mass movement of workers participating in the sabotage, it is not very effective as employers can just choose to terminate the employees participating and replace them with someone else who is desperately looking for a job. Going further than acknowledging sabotage as an acceptable tactic for worker utilization, Flynn lays out for the workers the different forms sabotage may take. She states, But sabotage as an instinctive defense existed long before it was ever officially recognized by any labor organization. Sabotage means primarily: the withdrawal of efficiency. Sabotage means either to slacken up and interfere with the quantity, or to botch in your skill and interfere with the quality, of capitalist production or to give poor service. For her, it is about slowing down production in order to gain leverage over the bosses. Flynn goes on to say, Sabotage is not physical violence, sabotage is an internal, industrial process. It is something that is fought out within the four walls of the shop: And these three forms of sabotage--to affect the quality, the quantity and the service are aimed at effecting the profit of the employer. Sabotage is a means of striking at the employer's profit for the purpose of forcing him into granting certain conditions, even as workingmen strike for the same purpose of coercing him. It is simply another form of coercion. It is clear from her explanation of what workplace sabotage that Flynn sees this as a threatening force to capitalist class. From her advocacy for it to her assurance that it is not violent or truly hurting anybody, it is apparent that she understands the reservations of some workers to participate in such a thing. She is not working to convince the employers that sabotage is good and necessary, because that would be ridiculous. But she is asserting that while the general public may be uncomfortable with the idea of workers 13 reducing productivity purposefully, it is not immoral for the workers to do what they believe is right. Harming rich capitalists monetarily is far more moral than, or at least morally equivalent to, the exploitation implemented by the capitalists in the first place. For Flynn, again, it is about the improvement of material conditions outweighing the ideals which uphold the institutions which allow for this type of worker exploitation to take place. Flynn’s view on sabotage is an important one because, while not completely connected to feminism, it highlights her persistence to ending the oppression faced by the working-class. Sabotaging the workplace is counterintuitive to the belief that under capitalism, the best worker will receive the best pay. In this case, Flynn is advocating for lower productivity in order achieve material gains. This emphasizes the anti-capitalist feminist belief that until oppression of the working-class comes to an end, there have to be revolutionary steps taken which undermine capitalism. Worker sabotage aids in this because it puts power directly into the hands of the worker. They are able to see that there is power in a union of workers equally fighting for improved material conditions. Much like with anti-capitalist feminism, it is essential that the working class stick together in order to keep power out of the hands of the oppressor, which cannot be done until a new system is made which puts power into the hands of the oppressed working-class. Flynn’s unflinching adherence to the belief that material conditions were at the root of all inequalities under capitalism set her apart from many of her non-radical female contemporaries for a number of reasons, but one of the most obvious of these is that this stance did not line up with the analysis that led to the Women’s Suffrage movement of the early 20th century in the US. Further, Flynn was a part of a mass workers movement 14 that included various minority groups. On the East Coast, many of the women working in the textile mills Flynn attempted to organize were immigrants. Immigrant women were not granted the ability to engage in political activities, nor were black women. This, presented with the fact that many of these women were working in horrific conditions for low pay, made it harder to push this liberal feminist idea of suffrage that was not universal. Not only did this idealism interfere with her materialist analysis of the US working-class, it almost completely ignored the people with which she was fighting to build a movement. 16 WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE While anti-capitalist feminism demands that material conditions be addressed, many liberal feminists do not see this in the same way. Liberal feminism is focused on the belief that women have the ability to maintain their own equality through their actions and choices, by the state removing barriers to women’s participation in society. This means that the things women say and the ideals that surround women can be changed by women asserting themselves as equals. Some of the earliest liberal feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft assert the idea that women are not inherently inferior to men, rather, they only appear this way as a result of a lack of education.17 Though it is not the case that anti-capitalist feminists disagreed with the assessment of men and women being equal, they did not believe it was the case that the disparity in the analysis of the sexes came from a lack of women’s education, though this is certainly a piece to the puzzle. 16 Jennifer Guglielmo, “Transnational Feminism’s Radical Past: Lessons from Italian Immigrant Women Anarchists in Industrializing America,” Journal of Women’s History 22, no. 1 (2010): 11. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/375625 17 Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (United Kingdom, 1792). 15 Material conditions faced by women, anti-capitalist feminists argue, are what drive the illusion of women’s inferiority. The material reality for women is confinement to the home, where they are expected to provide for the family while socializing their children to be meaningful participants in society. The lack of education services in the continuation of these material conditions which hold women back. 18 This plays a major role in the anti-capitalist feminist view on women’s suffrage. One noteworthy caveat surrounding the anti-capitalist feminist sentiments toward Women’s Suffrage is that they did not outright reject the notion that women ought to be allowed to vote. For them, it is not a matter of whether or not it should be allowed, but it is about the ability it has to make an impact on the material conditions of the workingclass, particularly women and their place within society. One particular instance where this kind of analysis of the movement at large can be seen is by examining the 1911 letter from Helen Keller to a woman referred to as Mrs. Grindon. It is in response to a letter from Grindon in which she asked Keller to speak on the topic of Women’s Suffrage. Keller admits that while she had been keeping up with the news surrounding the movement in Britain, she felt as though the movement was for naught as there was no way the British would allow it and it would not bring forth any meaningful change to the lives of women. Keller further suggests that not only does granting women the right to vote truly change their place within society, it puts those in power in a position to quell revolutionary activities among the population.19 18 Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, 5. 19 Helen Keller to Mrs. Grindon, 12 January 1911, Box 56, Folder 12, The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. 16 Keller posits that one main issue with this particular movement for enfranchisement is just a small part of the enfranchisement of all of mankind. She adds, “You ask for votes for women. What good can votes do you when ten elevenths of the land of Great Britain belong to two hundred thousand, and only one eleventh to the rest of the forty millions? Have your men with their millions of votes freed themselves from this injustice?”20 Keller’s critique of the movement is fundamentally connected to her critique of capitalism. She believes that the exploitation done by the wealthy landowners and capitalists cannot allow for any people to have true freedom. Until the working-class makes significant gains in their material condition, which includes a redistribution of wealth and land to the working-class, the right to vote and democracy are not truly freedoms. Women gaining the right to vote is a small part of a larger movement toward freeing those people from oppression, but Keller believed that the movement toward freedom was far from over, and this was a small battle to be fought in a much larger class war. One way this is drastically different from that of some liberal feminists is that she does not speak much on the gender relations of 1911, rather, she chose to focus on the relationship between capitalists and workers and of landowners and renters. This places the emphasis on class struggle, while not ignoring the material conditions that women face. In fact, she believes the material condition of women is so poor that, “I do not believe the present {British} Government has any intention of giving woman a part in national politics,… So long as the franchise is denied to a large number who serve and benefit the public, so long as those who vote are at the beck and call of the party machines, the people are not free, and the day of woman’s freedom seems still to be in the far future”21 20 Keller to Mrs Grindon, 3. 21 Keller to Mrs Grindon, 1-2.. 17 One reason why this seems to be Keller’s view is that she believes the material condition of women is that their place is capitalist society is so far removed from that of men. While women can make a gain in democracy, she believes that the British Government in particular is not willing to grant this small freedom to women because there are still so many freedoms than men lack as well. Women will have to make up for the already present disparity between men and women, and under capitalism, Keller does not see that as a possibility, as there are inherent disparities present under the capitalist system. Susan B. Anthony is the most famous American suffragists, and while her works were written years before Keller, many of her sentiments are echoed in the speeches of the Suffragettes of the early 20th century. Anthony, a pioneer of women’s suffrage in the US, argued that the first step toward ridding the world of its many ills was through universal participation in elections. She claimed that it was easy to gather people and to try to solve these issues, but without political power, women could not truly know the ills of the world enough, nor did they hold the power to solve the issues at hand.22 In the Declaration of the Rights of Women, Anthony and two other suffragists, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argue that, “Yet we cannot forget, even in this glad hour, that while all men of every race, and clime, and condition, have been invested with the full rights of citizenship under our hospitable flag, all women still suffer the degradation of disfranchisement.” 22 Susan B. Anthony, “Organization Among Women as an Instrument in Promoting the Interests of Political Liberty”, Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communication, accessed 15 March 2020, https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2019/05/21/organization-among-women-as-aninstrument-in-promoting-the-interests-of-political-liberty-may-20-1893/. 18 This belief was championed by suffragists for decades to come and is one of the fundamental reasons why many anti-capitalist feminists were critical of the movement as a whole. Without a materialist analysis, the material reality for black Southerners is completely ignored. Black women in the South did not enjoy freedom as a result of their release from chattel slavery. They continued to face racism in nearly every facet of their lives, and to suggest that they are politically or materially equal to any white man in the United States, or even upper or middle-class women, is quite a preposterous thing to suggest, especially when taking into account the fact that 1876 was before reconstruction had finished in an official capacity. Moreover, terrible racial violence continued to ravage the Deep South throughout reconstruction, and more glaringly, segregation was not illegal. Because ex-slaves and freed blacks existed in such large numbers throughout the south due to the material conditions they found themselves in, they did not find much more freedom following their release from literal chains. While Anthony was correct that in theory, all men could vote, she failed to recognize the stark reality that the legacy of slavery was not over. She, as the anti-capitalist feminists would argue, was too focused on the ideas encompassing her life, like liberal democracy, and did not care to examine the material conditions faced by the working people of America. They demanded material change, not a stuffable ballot box. Though Anthony’s ideas surrounding suffrage ultimately became mainstream feminist activism in the early 20th century, an anti-capitalist feminist who held differing beliefs about suffrage was Emma Goldman, a stringent anarchist feminist. While not a Marxist, Goldman held firm anti-capitalist beliefs and often worked alongside Marxists, as was the case with many radical activists during the early 20th century. To say that 19 Goldman rejected the Women’s Suffrage movement would not be completely accurate as she believed that suffrage as a whole was “evil”. She was particularly critical of the suffragists because, “It may be said that because woman recognizes the awful toll she is made to pay to the Church, State, and the home, she wants suffrage to set herself free. That may be true of the few; the majority of suffragists repudiate utterly such blasphemy”.23 As Goldman saw it, these women held no such desire to free themselves from the Church, State, and home, rather, they merely sought to fix these institutions to better suit the needs of women. Goldman goes on to say that the majority of the suffragists hold true the belief that women’s suffrage will make a better homemaker and Christian wife, which will only aid in strengthening the state. She adds, “Thus, suffrage is only a means of strengthening the omnipotence of the very Gods that woman has served from time immemorial”. For Goldman, to participate in liberal democracy at all is to reaffirm and justify its power over the people. Due to her belief in anarchism, Goldman would not support anything that aided in the expansion of State power, or the power of Christian institutions. Goldman posits that she does not reject women’s suffrage on the basis of women being lesser than men, on the contrary, she claimed to see nothing that set women apart from men physically or psychologically, but that one “can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed.”. Much like the sentiments of Helen Keller, Goldman is looking at more than the idea of woman gaining the right to vote, or even the basic implications of that right. She 23 Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays (Auckland, N.Z.: Floating Press, 2008; EBSCO Host, 2008), http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=94e780a6fa27-43f0-b98c-6d1b52e63ffe%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&vid=0&format=EB 20 is looking at the fundamental issues within a capitalist society that allow for such oppression to occur in the first place. Within her examination of suffrage, Goldman discusses the composition of the American suffrage movement as she saw it in 1911 and her disappointment in its detachment from the economic realities of the American people. She viewed the mainstream feminist movement of her time as being “altogether a parlor affair”.24 It was talking in middle-class settings during down time, which most working-class women would not have the means or time to participate in. Goldman is critical of the lack of access the movement granted to the working person. Anthony, in fact, admitted that some chapter across the country had membership fees that they collected from those interested in joining the organization.25 While this may not seem like such a huge obstacle, it is important to note that most working women did not work merely because they could go out and get a job. The jobs given to women paid poorly and often fostered unsafe work environments and working conditions. These jobs were taken out of some form of desperation, as housework was still expected to be completed so as to not inconvenience the husband. These low paying jobs were taken out of a necessity to ensure household finances remained sustainable. These women did not often have the ability to pay a small fee to attend meetings they did not have time for. This was extremely alarming to Goldman, not because of the lack of access, but due to the lack of focus on labor and working women as a whole. Goldman suggests, “Thus Susan B. Anthony, no doubt an exceptional type of woman, was not only indifferent but antagonistic to labor; nor did she hesitate to manifest her antagonism when, in 24 Goldman, Anarchism. 25 Anthony, “Organizing Women”. 21 1869, she advised women to take the places of striking printers in New York. I do not know whether her attitude had changed before her death.”26 The action taken by Anthony is considered extremely taboo in Marxist and other prolabor circles. It is not only tacitly implied, but violently enforced, that one should never cross a picket line. One who takes work in order to undermine the efforts of the strikers by taking their poorly paying jobs without complaint is colloquially referred to as a ‘scab’. This comes from the belief that a working-class individual, who knows the plight of the working-class, breaking a strike for better conditions, is a class traitor who puts their personal needs over the collective needs of the working-class. The fact that Anthony actively worked to get women to become scabs was viewed by those fighting a class-war, like anti-capitalist feminists, as unacceptable. It completely undermines the work activists like Goldman, Flynn, Keller, and many others were trying to accomplish. It was this apathy for the working-class that led to many anti-capitalist feminists to reject the idea of universal suffrage solving the many issues that plagued the US and world at large. Evidently, Keller was wrong about the status of suffrage, and not long after she sent the letter to Mrs Grindon, both British and American women gained the right to vote. This, as Keller predicted, had very little impact on material conditions for most women. Giving women the right to vote does not solve the wealth disparities in the US, nor did it grant women a new place within society. As Goldman predicted, many men viewed this as a concession to women, but did not see it as a reason for women to have a different position within society. Women were still expected to tend to the home, and in many cases, work a full-time job on top of this. In an essay written sometime during WWI, 26 Goldman, Anarchism 22 Keller wrote an essay entitled “The Problem of the Age”, which discussed this precise issue. Keller claims that the problem is the fear people have of revolution, which she, as a Marxist, does not understand. Keller argues, “Revolution means transformation and is accomplished when an entirely new principle is put in the place of existing things. Revolution differs fundamentally from reform. Reform goes on while the principle of the existing order continues, and aims only at improvement, or more logical or just consequences. The means are of no significance.” 27 This is one of the most fundamental principles of Marxism, as Marx suggests that a revolution of the working-class must happen in order to eliminate the class struggle. Interpretation of this stipulation, much like most of Marxist theory, varies from person to person, but they tend to agree that reform is not actual change and therefore, undermines the movement of people working to replace, not reform, a broken system. One way in which anti-capitalist feminists and liberal feminists continued to differ after the 19th amendment was ratified was their opinion on electoralism, or seeking to achieve the movement’s goals through the electoral process. In many instances, it is the case that anti-capitalist feminists disagree with electoralism on the basis that under capitalism, electoralism only seeks to further justify the capitalist system under which it is operating. That is to say, electoralism cannot solve the problems of capitalism, as those who are elected generally hold the beliefs and principles which allow for capitalism to thrive within a given society.28 This poses a problem because when faced with their own material reality, the working-class could truly benefit from the participation in electoral 27 Helen Keller, “The Problem of the Age”, Box 228, Folder 11, The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. 28 Goldman, Anarchism. 23 politics during much of the early 20th century. Poverty under Hoover was so bad that slums formed across many parts of the country which were nicknamed “Hoovervilles” as a result of Hoover’s sheer inability to deal with the both the causes and results of the Great Depression. Because of this economic conundrum, many anti-capitalist feminists saw the need to remove Hoover from office and elect a president who could help them to make gains in their material conditions.29 One way in which their call for women to get out an participate in democracy was different than that of liberal feminists was by appealing to the material reality workingclass women faced. When Flynn produced her pamphlet called, Women Have a Date With Destiny, in 1944, suffrage was already a reality for women across the United States. On top of this, the war being fought was one stopping active fascist governments. Flynn argues that due to the extreme conditions following the Hoover presidency and the fact that war was being fought in Europe to quell fascism, women needed to vote, and for Roosevelt, in order to secure their democracy and ensure the soldiers were able to eliminate fascism from the world. Despite the fact that Flynn asserts that, “Every election celebrates the birth of our freedom. It is proof that democracy works” it is essential to note that where Flynn’s analysis of participation in electoral politics differs remains in her continuation of class analysis.30 One thing anti-capitalist feminists had to be cognizant of was the fact that they were working to organize working-class people. Most of them did not have time to read political theory and be invested in the idea of workers revolution which may or may not take place during their lifetime. This meant that 29 Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Women Have a Date with Destiny (New York, New York: Workers Library Publishers, Inc., 1944). 30 Flynn, Date with Destiny, p. 4. 24 speaking in terms of material conditions was one of the basic ways in which these organizers could speak to the working-class and actually be heard. It is no different for Flynn in her plea for American women to vote in the election. Flynn appears to have made the calculation that what most American women are focused on at the time is the war and making sure there is enough food on their tables to feed their families. This would not be possible if conditions on the home front got worse because it would lower morale among the soldiers. Flynn argues that under Thomas Dewey, who was close to Hoover, the US would descend into further economic turmoil, and that would lead to a longer war with a negative outcome.31 BIRTH CONTROL AND WAGE SLAVERY Though many anti-capitalist feminists did eventually come around to electoralism, many others sought answers to improving material conditions through different avenues. Goldman and Margaret Sanger were both proponents of limiting family size by using birth control, a term originally coined by Sanger herself. Both women found themselves in jail on multiple occasions for disseminating information related to birth control.32 Birth control continues to be a controversial topic in many social spheres however, Goldman and Sanger were very passionate about the fact that this was an integral part of improving material conditions for the working-class. While their ideas surrounding the necessity of birth control were similar, their reasoning and execution were slightly different. Both 31 Flynn, Date with Destiny, p. 6-9 32 Emma Goldman to Helen Keller, 6 April 1916, Box 56, Folder 11, The Helen Keller Archives at the American Foundation for the Blind. Helen Keller, Speech regarding the importance of limiting families and birth control, c. 1915, Box 212, Folder 2, The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. 25 seemed to be of the mind that birth control was essential for women because women’s main purpose in life should not be merely reproductive in nature. Women should have the right to choose and plan for the ‘correct’ number of children able to be supported by their financial situation. In the case of Sanger, the form in which birth control should be utilized closely resembled eugenics programs. Most of her rhetoric was focused on actual material issues that working women faced, however in The Children’s Era, a speech delivered at the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, Sanger comments on the conception of children and how the opponents of Birth Control suggest that all children are conceived out of love. Sanger states, “Do I exaggerate? Am I taking a rare exception and making it a general rule? Our opponents declare that children are conceived in love, and that every new-born baby converts its parents to love and unselfishness. My answer is to point to the asylums, the hospitals, the ever-growing institutions for the unfit. Look into the family history of those who are feeble-minded; or behind the bars of jails and prisons. Trace the family histories; find out the conditions under which they were conceived and born, before you attempt to persuade us that reckless breeding has nothing to do with these grave questions.” While Sanger’s analysis of her opponent’s failing to analyze that not all children are planned for or even wanted, Sanger takes her ideas a step further to suggest that the issues faced by working-class people is connected to their family history. Not only is this offensive to working-class people, who are not all feeble-minded criminals, but it also undermines the very thing she is arguing ought to be offered: freedom of choice. Sanger does not suggest to forcibly sterilize poor people, but the imagery she uses suggests a contempt for the poor. She suggests they are a drain on society and its resources. Where 26 Sanger loses the working-class is by suggesting there ought to be disqualifying conditions regarding reproduction, and she asserts that the presence of these conditions, or failure to meet certain qualifications, would make parenthood a crime for the people reproducing. The conditions listed by Sanger are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Transmissible disease Temporary disease Subnormal children already in the family Time between births Twenty-three years as a minimum age for parents Economic circumstances adequate Spiritual Harmony between parents Sanger, while criticizing the living conditions under which working-class people and refugees are forced to live, Sanger suggests that perhaps these people should not be allowed to have children. She acknowledges that they are forced to live a “sinister struggle for existence” and rather than address the reasons why people are having so many children they cannot afford to care for, she asserts that they should be stopped before they even get the chance to make these decisions for themselves. Further, the rhetoric used to describe the people who are enduring such a hellish existence is fraught with negativity and xenophobic imagery. She compares impoverished children to weeds which overrun a garden. Her feminist critique for birth control, while more in line with serving material needs, is also anti-immigrant and strikingly anti-worker.33 For Goldman, the idea of birth control is appealing because without it, a woman cannot truly be in charge of her own freedom or body. Goldman’s feminism primarily 33 Margaret Sanger, “The Children’s Era- March 30, 1925”, Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communication, accessed 15 March 2020, https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/the-childrens-era-march-301925/. Margaret Sanger, “The Morality of Birth Control- November 18,1921”, Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communication, accessed 15 March, 2020, https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/the-morality-of-birth-control-nov-28-1921/. 27 focused on the ways in which the patriarchal system of capitalism affects the social and material condition of women. This means her critiques of birth control did not include critiques of the women themselves, or the children they produce under the system. Rather, Goldman choose to focus only on the woman and her body, she speaks very little of the husband other than to say than marriage itself is exploitative due to its demand for the bearing of children and women’s subservience. 34 Even when expanding beyond marriage itself, Goldman produces analysis of how a working woman has a much different experience than that of a woman engaged in a bourgeois marital situation. She never speaks of a lack of “pedigree” or “feeble-minded” children born to the women of the working-class. She never suggests that the women are to blame, nor does she blame their material conditions on the excess of children they may produce. Goldman chose to attack the patriarchal institution of marriage and the material condition women are forced into as a result of the education they receive. She argues that women are forced to deny their own natural urges toward sex, whereas that standard does not apply to men. The idea that women cannot engage in casual sexual relationships is troublesome to Goldman because she views that as undermining the natural freedoms that women deserve. Goldman’s analysis of how working-class women who work outside of the home is much more sensitive than Sanger’s. She does not suggest that these women produce bad offspring, rather, material reality results in the inability to make conscious decisions about family planning. The woman who works must complete her job outside of the home, and while there is a guise of freedom here, she suggests that it is no more than an effort to further oppress women, 34 Goldman, Anarchism 28 “She learns soon enough that the home, though not so large a prison as the factory, has more solid doors and bars. It has a keeper so faithful that naught can escape him. The most tragic part, however, is that the home no longer frees her from wage slavery; it only increases her task” Women are not only slaves to the patriarchy; they are now also wage-slaves. This, Goldman argues, is an inevitable part of capitalism. Just like her critique of suffrage, Goldman’s support of birth control is rooted in emancipating women from the power of the an oppressive institution, though in this case it is marriage and family. Granting women rights over their reproduction allows for them to seek higher education, take on professional careers, and have sex out of wedlock. While this does not eliminate the total power of the State over women and working-people generally, it does put women in a much better material position so as to achieve a stateless society like that envisioned by Goldman and other anarchists. While very skeptical of socialists and the ideology they adhered to, Goldman maintained solidarity among other anti-capitalist feminists, like Helen Keller. When Goldman found herself in jail for distributing information on birth control, Keller sent her “comrade” $100 and wrote a number of letters in defense of Goldman’s actions and beliefs. 35 Keller wrote at least two letters for New York District Attorney, Eric Swann, arguing that Goldman’s actions did not warrant her arrest as she believes that it is a moral obligation to recognize birth control as acceptable because it is morally correct to ensure that children are not neglected merely because their parents did not have to option to access contraception. Keller further posits that while she recognizes that Swann was merely doing his job when allowing for Goldman to be arrested, she also believes that 35 Goldman to Keller, 1916 29 what Goldman was doing was a valuable and necessary service to New Yorkers of all class backgrounds. Keller believed it was abhorrent to deny this basic information to women regarding their reproductive choices because the decision to have a child, Keller claims, should be based on material conditions and they should not be forced into worse material conditions simply because they did not have access to this basic reproductive information. Where Keller further differs from Sanger but agrees with Goldman lies in freedom of choice. Sanger suggests that there ought to be laws in place which require limiting family sizes, and while that is of concern for Keller and Goldman, they believe that this should be a choice made by the woman and should not be a matter of the state.36 While all three women suggest that this is a way to reduce the stress on the State and its institutions, the reasons behind their beliefs differ. For Sanger, it is a matter of reducing the ‘undesirable’ members of the population. That is to say, Sanger believes the State should be involved in the birth control movement so that they do not have to deal with children born into crippling poverty as well as reducing the disabled and mentally ill populations as well. Her view is that these people and their children are a drain on society and if they are forced into limiting their families through threats of criminal charges, the material conditions of the working class will improve. For Goldman, it is a matter of dependence on the State. Goldman believes that women must be in full control of their bodies, and thus, their family size because they will be able to reduce their own dependence on the State and the institutions that work to actively oppress the workingclass and benefit the wealthy elites. This was a problem for Goldman because this further 36 Helen Keller to Edward Swann, 7 April 1916, Box 56, Folder 11, The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. 30 increased the power of the elite class and strengthened the grip the State had over the working-class, specifically women. Keller finds herself somewhere in between the two. As a socialist, Keller does not wish to eliminate the State, rather, to make it a useful tool for the working-class. Keller was not a proponent of forcible sterilization or restrictions on relationships on the basis of potential viability of the offspring. Due to her disabilities, Keller was particularly familiar with the challenges faced by those with disabilities. She recognized that her education was possible due to the material conditions of her family and that this was not the ‘normal’ way in which those with disabilities were able to live. Keller was aware of the stark reality they faced; their parents simply could not afford to send them to a specialized education program and that meant they would not be able to receive a proper education so as to be “useful” members of society. This is why Keller did not support government control over which babies were allowed to survive or who people were allowed to reproduce with, as suggested by Sanger. Rather, Keller felt it important that women had control over and were educated about their own reproductive systems and the safe options they have in limiting the size of their families so as to maintain a semblance of acceptable material conditions. Keller felt as though because the State was able to turn away “undesirable” immigrants, women should be allowed to limit their own reproduction, applying the same logic used for undesirable immigrants for undesired pregnancy.37 Interestingly enough, despite their ideological differences, these women were able to work together in their activism surrounding birth control because of their deeply held 37 Keller, Speech on Limiting Families, Helen Keller, “Birth Control; A Patriotic Duty”, Box 223, Folder 10, The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. 31 anti-capitalist beliefs. Sanger, Goldman, and Keller all had different reasons for wanting women to gain access to information about family planning, but their ultimate goal remained the same. They wanted to lessen the dependence working-class people had on the State, and to improve their material conditions by allowing them the choice to have children or to hold off until they found themselves in a position to carry out a pregnancy. Moreover, none of them held the belief that women ought to be having children at all. This separates them from the suffragists who were working on a movement aimed at freeing women as well. Nor do they address the plight of the working-class and the necessary improvement of material conditions the anti-capitalist feminists sought. For instance, Emmaline Pankhurst, a British suffragist, speaks almost completely opposite of the anti-capitalist feminists who loosely supported the movement of Women’s Suffrage. Pankhurst in a speech delivered in Hartford, Connecticut entitled, Freedom or Death, examines the revolutionary forces in Russia and China. While she does acknowledge the fact that revolutionary activites were occurring in Russia and China in 1913, she suggests that the only reason these revolutionaries were respected in the West was based entirely on the fact that they were conducting male-centric activities. She then goes on to suggest that the true revolution was happening in France and it was a true revolution based on giving women the right to vote. As Keller pointed out in her letter to Mrs. Grindon just two years before, granting women suffrage without replacing multiple institutions and systems within a society, there can be no revolution, only reform. In her analysis of why women need the right to vote, Pankhurst cites property as an issue. Women could not hold property in England when Pankhurst was writing this, and she suggests that it is unfair for women to not inherit the property of her children if 32 they die. Pankhurst suggests that giving women the right to vote would allow them to hold property and be recognized in a way that the revolutionaries of China and Russia were by Western men.38 In her letter to Mrs Grindon, Keller provides insight into why this is not going to be very applicable to the majority of the women living in England. The aforementioned quote about land ownership in England highlights why Pankhurst’s analysis of women owning property does not sit well with anti-capitalist feminist. First, anti-capitalist, specifically Marxists, do not believe in the ownership of private property. The entire point of socialism is for the working-class to gain access to the means of production, which means collective ownership of public property seized by the State and given back to the workers. Moreover, as Keller pointed out, 1/11 of all land in England belongs to 40 million non-elite men, whereas 10/11 of that land belonged to only 200,000 men. To Keller this highlights precisely what she means about reform and revolution. These 40 million men vastly outnumber the ruling class, however, despite outnumbering the ruling class by millions, the working-class men who already have the right to vote and hold property have not managed to free themselves from the injustices of capitalism, much like the working-class men of the United States were also unable to rid themselves of being wage-slaves. CONCLUSION The labor movement was an inherently important part of manifesting anti-capitalist feminism in the United States and abroad. This is due to the belief that women cannot achieve true emancipation from the oppression they faced until the abolition of capitalism 38 Emmaline Pankhurst, “Freedom or Death, Nov. 13, 1913”, Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communcation, accessed 17 March 2020, https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/09/freedom-or-death-part-1-nov-13-1913/. 33 come to fruition, and neither can working-class men. That is to say, the steps taken by anti-capitalist feminists are always connected to the improvement of material conditions, not only for women, but for the rest of society as well. One of the main slogans utilized by the IWW in their quest to unionize industrial workers was “Bread and Roses”. Bread is representative of the bare minimum necessary to live. The demand for bread is a demand for a single job being able to support the basic needs of themselves and their families. Roses, a symbol still common today in Marxist/Socialist organization like the Democratic Socialists of America, are used to symbolize the other parts of life that are not basic needs. This demand is a call for wages being high enough to allow for families to do more than merely scrape by, but to experience a life not completely dedicated to laboring for capitalists. While it sounds similar to the idea of “Bread and Circuses” attributed to Juvenal, this is not a matter of a docile society.39 For the people who believed strongly in the slogan, it was about improving material conditions to a point where the proletariat could do more than merely work. They wanted increased wages, improved working conditions, and more power as workers because they recognized the oppression workers throughout the world faced.40 Bread and Roses was a call for unionization in its most basic form. These organizers used this slogan to gain recognition for their main demands. While utilized to gain union recognition, the Marxist organizers recognized that not all workers were dedicated to unionizing, and many more were unable to feasibly organize their workplaces, which is 39 Juvenal was a Roman poet active during the first and second centuries BCE. 40 "Training for Freedom." Life and Labor, vol. [8 , no. [9 , 1918, p. 189. Women's Studies Archive, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/NAKJUF457152308/WMNS?u=salt60366&sid= WMNS&xid=6a483571. 34 why their movement was not only focused on gaining union recognition and improving the conditions in union shops but on improving the material conditions for all workers. This is one of the most fundamental pieces of anti-capitalist feminism that stood out against early liberal feminism. Anti-capitalist feminists were focused on improving material conditions for all women, including the lives of those vehemently against their anti-capitalist view of the world. Suffragettes, while focused on women’s right to vote, were not focused on all women in this venture. Because the material conditions of working-class and minority women were not improved by giving women the right to vote, the vote meant very little to many women in the United States. Not all women in the country were granted the right to vote, as there were many roadblocks in place to suppress the votes of millions of men and women despite the efforts of the suffragettes. Poll taxes were in place in a number of states, including but not limited to the former Confederate States, until 1965. This meant that anyone unwilling, or unable, to spend money that could go towards basic needs, could not vote. While these taxes were levied in many states as an attempt to suppress the black vote, the tax affectively disenfranchised millions of working-class individuals from being able to vote. This is a perfect example of exactly what anti-capitalist feminists were often critical of in regards to the Women’s Suffrage movement. Material conditions were not improved for workers in a meaningful way prior to achieving the goal, and ultimately, millions continued to be denied their right to vote due to the material conditions they faced. Women’s Suffrage was a successful movement championed by liberal feminists and criticized anti-capitalist ones. Birth control did not seem to be on the radar of many liberal feminists while many anti-capitalist feminists were being arrested for distributing 35 information, and still, birth control is widely available throughout the United States. Labor strikes, while not always successful, continue to be fought throughout the United States. While liberal feminism seems to have adopted many of the ideological tendencies anti-capitalist ones, it remains clear that the divide is still there. Though many feminist archives feature women who they consider to be feminists in general, it is evident that even though a lot of the anti-capitalist ideas have been championed by liberal feminists since the end WWII, one glaring difference remains: liberal feminists continue to support liberal democracy, and by extension, capitalism. Material conditions have become more of a conversation point for liberal feminists, however, it appears that though these modern liberal feminists acknowledge the oppression of women under capitalism, they are still inherently reform minded, rather than revolutionaries. Until liberal feminist historians utilize dialectical materialism as a tool in analyzing anti-capitalist feminists, the disparities in the narrative surrounding feminism will remain, and these women will not be remembered for the beliefs they held that fueled their emersion feminism in the first place. 36 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony, Susan B.. “Organization Among Women as an Instrument in Promoting the Interests of Political Liberty.” Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communication. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2019/05/21/organization-among-women-as-aninstrument-in-promoting-the-interests-of-political-liberty-may-20-1893/. Brick, Howard and Christopher Phelps. Radicals in America: The U.S. Left Since the Second World War. New York City, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015. “Elizabeth Gurley Flynn." Fifth Estate. Vol. 5, no. 22,. Archives of Sexuality and Gender. Accessed 13 Feb. 2020. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/OVYQPP637288220/AHSI?u=marriottlibrary&sid =AHSI&xid=b2b4e1d0. Engels, Frederick. The Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State. Translated by Ernest Untermann. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1908; Project Guttenberg, 2010. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33111/33111-h/33111-h.htm Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York, N.Y: William Morrow and Company, 1970. Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley. I Speak My Own Piece. New York: Masses & Mainstream, Inc., 1955. Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley. Sabotage: The Conscious Withdrawal of the Workers' Industrial Efficiency. Chicago, Illinois: I.W.W. Publishing Bureau, 1917. Accessed 13 February 2020. 37 http://www.archive.org/details/SabotageTheConsciousWithdrawalOfTheWorkersI ndustrialEfficiency. Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley. Statement at the Smith Act Trial - April 24, 1952. Archives of Women’s Political Communication. Accessed 12 March 2020. https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/statement-at-the-smith-act-trialapril-24-1952/. Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley. Women Have a Date with Destiny. New York, New York: Workers Library Publishers, Inc., 1944. Fosl, Catherine. “Life and Times of A Rebel Girl: Jane Speed and the Alabama Communist Party.” The Southern Historian 18, no. 1 (1997): 45-65. Goldman, Emma. Anarchism and Other Essays. Auckland, N.Z.: Floating Press, 2008; EBSCO Host, 2008. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=9 4e780a6-fa27-43f0-b98c-6d1b52e63ffe%40sdc-vsessmgr03&vid=0&format=EB. Goldman, Emma. Letter to Helen Keller. The Helen Keller Archives at the American Foundation for the Blind. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK01-03-B056-F11002&e=-------en-20--1--txt--------3-7-6-5-3--------------0-1. Guglielmo, Jennifer. “Transnational Feminism’s Radical Past: Lessons from Italian Immigrant Women Anarchists in Industrializing America,” Journal of Women’s History 22, no. 1 (2010): 10-33, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/375625. Howard, Walter T. “Radicals Not Wanted: Communists and the 1929 Wilkes 38 Barre Silk Mill Strikes.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 69, no. 3 (2003): 342-366. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27774418. International Workers of the World. The Little Red Songbook, 1915. Keller, Helen. “The Problem of the Age.” The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK02-B228-F11-013&e=------en-20--1--txt--------3-7-6-5-3--------------0-1. Keller, Helen. Speech regarding the importance of limiting families and birth control. The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK02-B212F02-016&e=-------en-20--1--txt--------3-7-6-5-3--------------0-1. Keller, Helen. “Birth Control; A Patriotic Duty.” The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK02-B223-F10-016&e=------en-20--1--txt--------3-7-6-5-3--------------0-1. Keller, Helen. Letter to Edward Swann. The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK01-03-B056-F11006&e=-------en-20--1--txt--------3-7-6-5-3--------------0-1. Keller, Helen. Letter to Mrs. Grindon. The Helen Keller Archive at the American Foundation for the Blind. Accessed 12 March 2020. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK01-03-B056-F12026&e=-------en-20--1--txt--------3-7-6-5-3--------------0-1. 39 Marx, Karl. The Poverty of Philosophy: Chapter 2: The Metaphysics of Political Economy. Paris, 1847; Marxists Internet Archive, 1999. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm Marxists Internet Archive. “Congress of the First International.” Accessed October 27, 2019. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/c/comintern.htm#2-6-3-. Marxists Internet Archives. “The Daily Worker.” Accessed October 29, 2019. https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/index.htm. Marxists Internet Archive. “Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.” Accessed February 01, 2020. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/f/l.htm#flynn-elizabeth-gurley Marxist Internet Archive. “Glossary of People: Marx, Karl.” Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/a.htm#marx. Marxists Internet Archives. “Labor Defender.” Accessed October 29, 2019. https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/index.htm. Marxist Internet Archive. “Marx-Engels Archive: Engels, Frederick.” Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/engels/en-1892.htm. Marxists Internet Archive. “Presidential Elections: Leftist Votes.” Accessed October 28, 2019. https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/government/elections/president. McHugh, Nancy Arden. Feminist Philosophies A-Z. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2007, Adobe Digital Edition. McLean, Iain, and Alistair McMillan. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Third edition, 2009. 40 Orleck, Annelise. Common Sense and a Little Fire: Women and the Working-Class Politics in the United States, 1900-1965. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2017. Orleck, Annelise. Storming Caesars Palace: How Black Mothers Fought Their Own War on Poverty. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 2005. Pankhurst, Emmaline. “Freedom or Death.” Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communcation. Accessed 17 March 2020. https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/09/freedom-or-death-part-1-nov-131913/. Sanger, Margaret. “The Children’s Era- March 30, 1925. ”Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communication. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/the-childrens-era-march-301925/. Sanger, Margaret. “The Morality of Birth Control- November 18,1921.” Iowa State University Archives of Women’s Political Communication. Accessed 15 March 2020. https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/the-morality-of-birth-controlnov-28-1921/. Schofield, Ann. “Rebel Girls and Union Maids: The Woman Question in the Journals of the AFL and IWW, 1905-1920.” Feminist Studies 9, no. 2 (1989): 335-358. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3177496. Spencer, LLyod, and Andrezej Krauze. Hegel For Beginners. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Icon Books, 2012; Marxists Internet Archive. Accessed 4 May 2020. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm. “Training for Freedom.” Life and Labor 8, 1918. Accessed 13 February 2020. Women's 41 Studies Archive. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/NAKJUF457152308/WMNS?u=salt60366&sid= WMNS&xid=6a483571. Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United State. New York City, New York: HarperCollins Publisher, 2015.