Critique of Communization and Feminism

Two books by Aníbal / Inter-rev (Spanish)

The magician’s hat. Repertoire of tricks and circus of communization


“If, however, the fear of being wrong instils distrust of science, which gives itself over to its task without such qualms and really knows, it is not clear why one should not feel, on the contrary, distrust of this distrust and harbor the concern that this fear of being wrong is already error itself” (Hegel, Phenomenology of the Spirit).

“Every lie of importance needs a circumstantial detail to be believed” (Prosper Mérimée)

The sowing of novelties that supposedly improve revolutionary theory and correct its defects is often related to the “magic of the word” … In this respect, it is important to recognize the ability of the communization media and ideologists, but the bad thing is that they influence sectors that yearn for revolution.

The contrast between this effort to cleanse historical materialism of its imperfections and shortcomings (which, together with critical dialectics, is the basis of scientific communism as a theory) and the doctrinal developments of communization is clear and must be explained properly and in detail. This book completes the previously published book and the criticisms made in the inter-rev [inter-revolutionary] forum.

The communization nebula revolves around some points of agreement between all the parties that claim to be part of it, and also presents different gaseous expressions and even various types of dark matter. These points are in complete and utter contradiction with the needs of the proletarian emancipation movement and of those of us who claim to be part of internationalist communism.

This nebula of communization is presented as the overcoming of the deficiencies and errors of the previous expressions of left communism, the various ultra-lefts and the most radical movements of the proletarian struggle, which often include some petty bourgeois-radicals, such as situationist, autonomist expressions, coming from student, ecological and feminist movements. With respect to workers’ autonomy they do not bring solutions to their errors and dead ends, except for abstractions with a limited vital pulse, which are dead and practically useless… but which divert and entertain in the nothingness which is believed to be of superior critical relevance.

There is no overcoming in the communization, we cannot validate its arrogant pretensions, which rather represent one more step in the unrestrained and theoretically degenerated evolution of maximalist sectors of the ultra-left of the past. It evidences a regression and not a progress in the lucidity, which in communication is widely replaced by a gale of abstract phraseology seasoned with leftist positions from the past, in a contradictory, heavy and stomach-turning cocktail… where evidently there is some tinkling of positioning and critically adequate, but never to the point and appealing. They are the least and are diluted in such a gale. As in the case of Bakunin and anarchism, if there is anything positive it is in spite of their notorious mistakes and blurring.

A theory and a movement must be evaluated and judged not only on what they bring to this or that point, on whether they succeed in answering certain questions, or on whether they repeat some valid and satisfactory positions, but also by balancing them against their role in sterilizing and diverting potential or really revolutionary energies and capacities from existing fundamental needs, as well as on their functions of hindering solutions to the problems that most concern us and make us suffer.  The balance of communization is not positive, and there is no sign of it becoming so, given its characteristics, pretensions and essential methodologies, including the fact that it harbors a notorious lumpen-left attitude that conjures up its shortcomings and limitations with attitudes typical of this milieu, deploying its traditional opportunism and its bad arts, presented as the ultra-revolutionary essence of the solutions, attitudes and tendencies that are necessarily indisputable.  This opens the box of imprecision, imposture and alibi, a fictitious overcoming through disconnected abstractions from real material and historical movements, a solipsistic subjectivism in decline, in short, it is not a coarse communism that is at stake but a coarse idealization of communism that is conceived and acted upon as a being for the beyond, for the non plus ultra, and also concretized in certain relations. Their utterances hide the limited series of communist measures, and when we measure the content of their utterances we find that they are quantitatively infinite and qualitatively formed of only a small group of pretensions that any genuine communist tendency   is maintained without so much as a fuss, diluted in an ocean of insubstantial and dislocated logorrheic abstractions


1. Tossing the salad. Dogmas and agitated doctrinal developments of the communist ideology. Their role in the class struggle. Page 6

 2.  Political struggle, period of revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism (lower stage of communism, communism still underdeveloped). Communism and anarchism. Page 98

3. Mikhail Bakunin on the transition period, authority, socialist society. Similarities and coincidences with communization. Page 107

4. Communization prolongs the theoretical debacle of ultra-leftism, feeding it with a specific content, with abundant biased fallacies.

5.Various texts appeared on the inter.rev forum.Page 133

Effective history, imaginary history. Women, men, classes, states, division of labour, social dynamics, production, reproduction, rights

Prepared by Aníbal (Foro inter -rev)


The aim of this text is to provide numerous data and abundant content on the various topics dealt with, as well as a series of clear positions on questions that are essential to base and specify a historical materialistic orientation on what has been called the female question.  In the scientific communist field, the great initial contributions were made by Friedrich Engels, writing The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and by August Bebel , with Women and Socialism.

Many interpretative trends and schools in various fields have created their respective visions, with the corresponding ideological influences, with their own biases, their polemics and their overlapping with social and political movements and trends. In the background is the great question of the production and reproduction of capitalism, what it has incorporated from other class civilizations, what it has transformed from them and what it has created specifically in its image, that of its needs and possibilities. Feminism , since the French revolution and particularly after the irruption of its formal suffragette variant at the beginning of the 20th century , with its subsequent expressions or waves, has generated a vision with abundant imaginary biases, focused around its elaborations on patriarchy and the dynamics of subordination and oppression assigned to it.

These works must be subjected to criticism in order to demystify their chimerical contents, which permeate a series of important social practices in the history of capitalism, and particularly at this time (2020). Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the study of the reproduction of human life and the labor force, the modalities of division of labor, the domestic and wage-earning types, the structures and relations in which they are expressed, the institutional dynamism and the forms of ideology and consciousness linked to all this. To investigate the origins of the class division of labor and property, of the State, of the concretions of the sexual division of tasks and jobs, with its corresponding legal and institutional formalization, is a task that must be continued, in which conceptions are mixed from verification to others that are fully verified,  as the one that takes us from the changes in the productive and reproductive processes of the labor force to the modalities of division in which they are socially shaped, with their corresponding dynamics of antagonism, exploitation, oppression, and subordination, in a dynamic, dialectic and historical relationship. It is also worth exploring

Neither all men have benefited equally from the different statuses of women, neither from power nor from subordination, nor have all women been equally subjugated and oppressed. And all this is valid in the past, in pre-capitalist societies, as in the present, where the dominant relations around which economic and social life is structured and organized are those of capitalism.  The present book is based on the elaboration, selection and compilation of texts carried out during several years in the inter-revolutionary forum. This is to show very eloquent and significant data, showing how the various parties involved analyze it, and particularly how it is interpreted ideologically by forces and personalities in the bourgeois media, in order to show the interpretation and the appropriate positions for the promotion of the class independence of the proletariat, which is the basic condition for the revolution


Introduction. P. 7

1.1) Domestic activities and services and their link to capitalism. P. 7

1.2) Domestic work, women’s work Real and imaginary insertion in the capitalist mode of production. Negative consequences of feminism that practically benefit capital. P. 26

2) Texts with research and approaches. P. 82

3 ) Patriarchal family in the Ancient Near East, late Neolithic and Chalcolithic. P. 94

4) Supposed and real patriarchy. Feminist mystifications of patriarchy and the characteristics of capitalism. P. 104

5) Division and specialization of labor. Forces and components of social material production : fundamental and secondary. Oppression, subordination, exploitation, discrimination. Historical development up to and including capitalism. P. 117

6) Radical feminism and the emergence of its theories of patriarchy. P. 121.

7) Historical materialism: family types, division of labor, production-reproduction, its material conditions and determinations, classes, oppressions, state. P. 123.

8) Around Gerda Lerner, author of “The Creation of the Patriarchy”. P. 133

9) Marx’s studies on Morgan’s work, Engels’ work. Positions of Bebel and Kautsky. P. 151

10) Struggles between identity corporatism. Disaggregating ideologically the class reality of capitalism, confusing the struggle against real oppressions. P. 158

11) Family, Familiarism, Capitalism . Various texts and articles published in the inter-rev. forum. Selection and referencing. P. 164

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: