Arm in Arm: First World Women and Imperialism
Maoism-Third Worldism holds that First World workers are not exploited, but instead comprise a parasitic labor aristocracy supported through global exploitation (1). This system, which we call Imperialism, is generally reinforced by patriarchy, and so the First World is a big supporter of patriarchy internationally. As a result, gender has come to take an international character, continuing a trend of gender becoming more divorced from biology.
Because of patriarchy, Third World women can be exploited to a higher degree than Third World men, even when they engage in comparable productive work, or they can be barred from productive work all together. The latter kind of oppression can limit the opportunities and abilities of women, create a divide between oppressed people with similar class interests, and limit the income of families as a group. The end result of all these things is that patriarchy plays straight into imperial interests.
It follows that people in the First World have something to gain from patriarchy. By definition, the male is the beneficiary of patriarchy, so our options are either to throw out the term “patriarchy” as outdated, or to assert that the First world is generally gendered male, regardless of the physical attributes of the people involved. Physical attributes got the ball rolling for gender, but in recent history they haven’t had a lot to do with gender roles, so it’s very possible to make this assertion. Since we are inclined to keep the term, we also assert that many men in the Third World are gendered female, because they end up being among the victims of patriarchy.
Some people are talking about a “gender aristocracy,” although what exactly is meant by “gender aristocracy” often isn’t explained. In an attempt to solidify this term, RDOW will define the gender aristocracy as the group of people whose wealth can mostly be attributed to a parasitic relation to another parasite, that is, to the bourgeoisie or to the labor aristocracy. This would include First World “house wives” who are among the wealthiest people in the world, people in pornographic forms of entertainment, etc, and these people could be either men or women biologically (2). Following this definition, the gender aristocracy is separate but related to the labor aristocracy; normally someone cannot be a member of both.
The gender aristocracy has just as much material interest in continuing imperialism as the bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, so the essentially national and male chauvinist characteristics of the First World cannot be overstressed. First World women have no material interest in defeating patriarchy and there is no “universal sisterhood.” Instead there is a collection of exploiters who seek to maintain and expand oppression in the Third World in order support their parasitic lifestyles, and a collection of oppressed nations who make such lifestyles possible. This is the contradiction between imperialist nations and the oppressed nations, between the First and Third Worlds. This is the principal contradiction.
Notes:
1. If you are new to this idea, check out Monkey Smashes Heaven’s writings on the labor aristocracy. Monkey Smashes Heaven is linked to the right. Here are a few things to get you started: A rough estimate of the value of labor by Serve the People of IRTR; Notes on Exploitation, Distribution and Method; Global Inequality or Socialist Equality. You may also be interested in some of Monkey Smashes Heaven’s writings on gender- in 2007 they came out with their Stand-In Gender Line.
2. This is really more of a working definition than anything else. If you think this term could be better defined, please share your ideas with us in the comments.
