Introduction
Gender is inextricably tied to the material conditions of capitalism. Today more than ever, this mode of production remains highly dependent on unpaid domestic work – predominantly performed by women – for the reproduction of labour and, ultimately, its own survival. Gender, as distinct from sex, is both socially and economically constructed; it refers to the attributes, activities, roles, and behaviours that a given society considers appropriate for individuals based on their perceived or assigned sex.
Under capitalism, gendered oppression manifests in different ways, making it necessary to distinguish between systemic oppression and discrimination. Discrimination refers to unfair treatment, exclusion, or prejudice based on gender identity, manifesting in areas such as employment, healthcare, legal rights, and everyday life. Oppression, on the other hand, is a structural condition, directly tied to the economic base of society and serving the material interests of the ruling class.
Contemporary approaches to gender often focus on individual identities and rights, overlooking the material conditions that sustain both women’s oppression and LGBTQI+ discrimination. While legal rights and personal freedoms are essential, they do not address the structural inequality perpetuated by capitalism. A historical-materialist analysis reveals that ending women’s oppression and LGBTQI+ discrimination requires a fundamental transformation of the economic system and the overthrow of capitalism.
Discrimination and oppression, while interconnected, are not identical. While all members of the working class are exploited through the extraction of surplus value from their labour, women, whether cisgender or transgender, face additional systemic oppression rooted in their role in social reproduction. This oppression is embedded in the economic structures of society, reinforcing their subordination and limiting their participation in wage labour and the broader class struggle around it. Women’s unpaid domestic labour – such as child-rearing, caregiving, and maintaining households – is essential for reproducing the workforce at no cost to the capitalist class, thereby entrenching patriarchal norms and perpetuating gender inequality.
LGBTQI+ individuals face systemic discrimination that stems from capitalism’s reliance on the nuclear family as a unit of labour reproduction. However, this discrimination is primarily ideological and cultural rather than economically rooted in the same way as women’s oppression is. LGBTQI+ individuals do not perform a distinct economic role within capitalism that directly supports its functioning. Instead, their marginalisation reinforces traditional gender roles and the nuclear family structure, deepening divisions within the working class and perpetuating the ideological norms necessary for the survival of the capitalist system.
Women’s oppression is directly rooted in the material basis of society, stemming from their role in unpaid domestic labour and the reproduction of the workforce, which are essential for the functioning of capitalism. This systematic and institutionalised inequality serves to weaken class solidarity and perpetuate gendered divisions of labour. In contrast, LGBTQI+ discrimination arises as a result of these material conditions but does not directly originate from them. It is a byproduct of the ideological and cultural superstructures built to sustain the capitalist system, functioning through policies, practices, and norms that enforce heteronormativity and traditional family structures. While discrimination against LGBTQI+ individuals reinforces divisions within the working class and upholds the capitalist order, it lacks the direct economic role that defines women’s oppression.
It is therefore important to emphasise that the distinction between oppression and discrimination does neither represent a hierarchical scale of hardship, nor does it undermine the struggles faced by LGBTQI+ people. Instead, highlighting the difference between women and LGBTQI+ in light of the objective mode of production serves to better understand how capitalism operates. Only by comprehending the specific ways in which capitalism enforces oppression and discrimination, can we effectively organise against it and combat all forms of inequality.
The role of women
The role of women under capitalism is integral to its development and perpetuation. All members of the working class are exploited, unable to access the full value of their labour because surplus value is appropriated by capitalists. However, in addition to exploitation, working-class women also experience oppression, which stems largely from their central role in social reproduction. This refers to the unpaid labour that reproduces the labour force, in particular activities such as taking care of children, elderly, and households more in general. Women are tasked with ensuring the continuation of the labour force, often while also engaging in wage labour. In the workplace, they face lower wages, discrimination, and the constant challenge of balancing family responsibilities. These dynamics make women particularly vulnerable to capitalist exploitation, where they are often viewed as a flexible and cheaper source of labour. At home, however, their conditions can be even more oppressive, as they have the primary responsibility for domestic tasks. As Friedrich Engels observed, ‘The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife’.[1] This unpaid domestic labour is critical to capitalism, as it reduces the cost of reproducing the workforce and ensures a steady supply of labourers.
Women often endure a double burden, combining the exploitation of their paid work with the unpaid domestic labour demanded within the family. This dual role is intrinsic to capitalism’s functioning, as it ensures that the system remains profitable while shifting the costs of labour reproduction onto women.
The modern monogamous family has historically played a central role in sustaining these dynamics. Built on the supremacy of men, the nuclear family emerged already in the Neolithic era as a mechanism for controlling property inheritance and ensuring paternity certainty for the transfer of private wealth. This development coincided with the rise of class society, where wealth accumulation and inheritance became paramount. The family, therefore, is not a natural or immutable institution but a construct shaped by historical economic systems, which Engels summarised by saying: ‘Within the family, [the husband] is the bourgeois, and the wife represents the proletariat’.[2]
The family structure itself has evolved alongside different modes of production, showing how this dynamic is not grounded in inherent biological differences but rather in the historical evolution of property and production relations. As Marx explained, economic factors – including relations of production, property ownership, and the consequent division of society into classes – are the foundation of society, shaping its development and structures. However, capitalism depends on more than its economic base; it also relies on a superstructure that supports and legitimises its operations. While state and political institutions form the political component of this superstructure, the family operates as a critical social unit. It is within the family that labour power is reproduced, property and wealth are transmitted, and social norms are instilled.
The family also serves capitalism by producing and raising the next generation of workers. Women’s unpaid domestic labour ensures the sustenance and preparation of these labourers without additional cost to the capitalist system. Tasks such as preparing food, looking after children or maintaining households are largely carried out within the family and are crucial to the continuous reproduction of labour power. Without these activities, the capitalist system would be unable to sustain itself. The family thus becomes the primary site for this reproduction, with domestic labour, predominantly performed by women, at its core.
Consequently, by institutionalising the family, capitalism entrenches and defends patriarchal norms. These norms uphold women’s economic dependence on men, confining them to unpaid domestic roles and limiting their opportunities for participation in productive, wage-earning work. Even when women enter the workforce, they are often segregated into lower-paying, less secure jobs and are disproportionately affected by precarious working conditions. This economic dependency reinforces their subordinate position within the family and society, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation and inequality. As Lenin noted, ‘The housewife’s position […] is one of domestic slavery’.[3]
The consequences of this dynamic are profound. First and foremost, by maintaining patriarchal family structures and reinforcing traditional gender roles, capitalism creates additional divisions within the working class. A united working class poses a significant threat to the bourgeoisie. Divisions based on gender, race, nationality, disability, wage levels and other factors are perpetuated to fragment collective action and weaken solidarity among workers, thus ensuring that the ruling class maintains control. Women’s oppression, therefore, is not merely a byproduct of capitalism but a deliberate and essential component of its existence. It is through the exploitation of women’s unpaid domestic labour and their unequal position in the workforce that capitalism is able to sustain itself.
Understanding the role of women under capitalism requires recognising the interconnected nature of social reproduction, economic exploitation, and patriarchal oppression. Women’s labour is vital to the reproduction of the capitalist system. At the same time, the family structure and patriarchal norms serve to maintain and legitimise this exploitation. Addressing women’s oppression, therefore, cannot be achieved solely through individual changes or social reforms. It necessitates fundamentally overthrowing the capitalist system and the patriarchal structures that are embedded in it.
In this context, targeting the monogamous family as an abstract or independent entity does not contribute in any way to developing a coherent struggle against capitalism. Individual choices in personal affairs – such as polyamorous relationships, trios, or communes – merely shift the socio-economic origins of exploitation and oppression to a personal level, reinforcing the incorrect and dangerous bourgeois notion that capitalism can be fought through individual or cultural choices.
A similar issue arises in the analysis of patriarchy. As a historical concept, patriarchy can certainly be useful in tracing the social and material foundations of gendered oppression. However, when feminist movements define patriarchy as their primary political enemy, they not only detach it from its position within the capitalist mode of production but also reduce the category of class to a superficial and marginal social distinction. As a result, the primary demand of these feminist movements shifts from the abolition of capitalism to the abolition of patriarchy – an objective that, according to their framework, could be achieved within capitalism itself and would supposedly lead to the full liberation of all women.
This perspective is deeply flawed. On one side, it confuses women’s liberation with women’s equalisation with men, disregarding the fact that working-class men, under capitalism, are themselves not liberated; on the other, it spreads the erroneous notion that this transformation of capitalism should be pursued by working-class and bourgeois women united against men of all classes. By dividing the struggle of working-class men and women, such feminist movements ultimately promote a bourgeois ideology – one that Clara Zetkin criticised in 1896 when she wrote: ‘The working woman has no more in common with the bourgeois woman than the working man has with the bourgeois man. She is not fighting men of her own class, but the exploiters of all workers, the bourgeoisie’.[4]
The reproduction of labour
To fully understand the scope of women’s oppression under capitalism, it is necessary to address the distinctions between productive, unproductive, and what has been somehow improperly categorised as ‘reproductive labour’. Productive labour directly contributes to the creation of surplus value, whereas unproductive labour includes activities that do not generate surplus value directly, for instance public sector work. Reproduction of labour refers to unpaid work involved in maintaining and reproducing the workforce, such as raising children or taking care of the house. The distinction between these forms of labour is crucial not only for understanding the division of labour in capitalist society but also for analysing how women’s labour, particularly in the domestic sphere, sustains the economic base of capitalism without formal recognition or compensation.
Capitalism’s reliance on unpaid labour to reproduce the workforce allows the system to function without directly bearing the costs of reproduction, hidden in the private sphere of the nuclear family. However, it is incorrect to understand this process as a separate category, i.e., reproductive labour, as in this way it would weaken its connection to capitalist production. Instead, fragmented and isolated tasks of the reproduction of labour must be viewed in the context of the global and social reproduction: the ongoing maintenance of the overall workforce that enables capitalism to function. In this framework, the reproduction of labour is an extension of the labour process that ensures the continual supply of labour power, which is central to the survival of capitalism.
As Marx argued: ‘The maintenance and reproduction of the working class remains a necessary condition for the reproduction of capital. But the capitalist may safely leave this to the worker’s drives for self-preservation and propagation’.[5] This explains how the capitalist system depends on the reproduction of labour power but does not directly compensate or organise it. These activities, while essential for capitalism’s survival, are left to workers themselves, often within the sphere of – mostly women’s – unpaid domestic labour. By making this labour unpaid and invisible, capitalism reduces its costs by externalising the expenses of reproducing the workforce on a part of the workforce itself in this way, being able to concentrate exclusively on the production of surplus value.
It is important to address and critique how, within the feminist movement, some have argued that the function of reproducing labour can be defined as a separate category of reproductive labour. For instance, this has also been used as one of the main arguments for the wages for housework campaign. Silvia Federici, for instance, argued that: ‘The discovery of reproductive work has made it possible to understand that capitalist production relies on the production of a particular type of worker – and therefore a particular type of family, sexuality, procreation – and thus to redefine the private sphere as a sphere of relations of production and a terrain of anticapitalist struggle’.[6] However, as we have seen, it is incorrect to view the function of reproducing labour as a separate category, as it is deeply intertwined with and exists only to serve the production of value and surplus value. Therefore, labour necessary for the reproduction of the working class cannot be understood as an independent entity, but only as a related function in the broader system of capitalist production and exploitation. Denying a distinct category does not mean that the reproduction of labour – particularly domestic work performed by women – is less important than productive labour. On the contrary, it is a critical and essential part, without which productive labour cannot exist.
It is then crucial to fight for better conditions for women, but this fight must take place within workplaces and society, not in the homes, as only in this way women can join the workforce to fight unitedly with the rest of the working class for socialism. There are objective barriers preventing women from doing so, and these barriers – such as the cost of childcare, the gender pay gap, and other structural inequalities – must be addressed immediately, as they are preconditions for women to participate in wage work and join the struggle of the working class where it takes place. Contrasting with the belief, held by Silvia Federici, that women can resist within the household or that women’s reproductive labour can be a revolutionary force in itself, the focus should not be on how women’s unpaid labour is recognised but on freeing women from the burden of this unpaid labour. This can only partially be achieved by distributing this workload more evenly within the family. More importantly, there is a need to create social structures and services capable of absorbing tasks related to the reproduction of the labour force. Only in this way will women be able to fight their battles in the workplace.
In conclusion, the struggle to liberate the entire working class is not about organising the household but about overthrowing capitalism where it is most vulnerable, that is in the place of production. Women and men are essential to winning this fight. As Lenin argued: ‘The working women’s movement has for its objective the fight for the economic and social, and not merely formal, equality of woman. The main task is to draw the women into socially productive labour, extricate them from “domestic slavery”, free them of their stultifying and humiliating resignation to the perpetual and exclusive atmosphere of the kitchen and nursery’.[7]
Elevating domestic labour as a primary focus can divide the working class, weakening its unity and its capacity to fight capitalism. Class struggle must be fought on the basis of unity between all sections of the working class, including all genders. Instead of creating artificial divisions or separate approaches for women’s liberation, the focus should be on recognising the role women perform in society and addressing the specific challenges they face, so that their participation in paid labour can be promoted and guaranteed – and in turn become the starting point for their organised fight against capitalism.
Gender and LGBTQI+ Discrimination
Contemporary gender and LGBTQI+ theories often overlook a materialist perspective, failing to analyse gender-related issues in relation to capitalism and class struggle. To address this, it is crucial to distinguish between discrimination and oppression within the context of capitalism.
Under capitalism, LGBTQI+ people face significant discrimination, often beginning at a young age with the threat of family rejection and loss of financial support. Many are forced into early employment, limiting access to higher education and making it even harder to secure stable jobs due to persistent workplace discrimination. LGBTQI+ individuals, particularly trans people, experience some of the highest unemployment rates and are often employed in industries with low unionisation, resulting in particularly bad working conditions.
These widespread disadvantages experienced by LGBTQI+ people do not stem from their particular position within the capitalist mode of production, as they neither play a structural role in a specific branch of production nor in the reproduction of labour, as women do. Of course, this does not mean that their discrimination is simply the result of cultural or individual biases, but it is clearly still connected to the capitalist organisation of production. In needing to preserve the oppressed condition of women within the nuclear family to guarantee the free reproduction of labour, capitalism tends to repress any social model that departs from this standard. Promoting a different form of personal and communal organisation, LGBTQI+ people inevitably pay the price for deviating from the status quo, receiving in return worse working and living conditions. However, it is important to note that this is not a linear process. As the current developments of pink and rainbow capitalism shows, capitalism can have contradictory interests, leading it to simultaneously repress and promote non-traditional family models, depending on which position seems most profitable in the short term.
In summary, the disadvantages experienced by LGBTQI+ people stem from ideological and cultural considerations rather than from their objective position in the production system. For this reason, ‘discrimination’ is a more accurate term than ‘oppression’ to describe this process.
Modern discussions on gender often present it as fluid and socially constructed, detaching it from material conditions. Queer theory and postmodern feminism argues that gender is not a fixed category but a spectrum shaped by societal norms, emphasising self-determination and diverse expressions. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, the focus should be on how capitalism utilises gender to sustain itself rather than on how individuals fit within gender classifications. As mentioned earlier, gender is a socioeconomic construct, meaning it is artificially created and not universally applicable to all individuals. Modern liberal perspectives focus primarily on exploring the diverse expressions of gender but neglect the economic and class relations that underpin gender inequality. Gender should not be isolated from the wider class analysis as the risk is to overlook capitalism’s reliance on a gendered division of labour.
Many contemporary gender and LGBTQI+ theories and movements prioritise personal freedom, legal recognition, and equality within the capitalist framework. While campaigns for same-sex unions, anti-discrimination laws, and gender recognition are essential for securing basic rights, and should therefore be supported by communists, they fail to challenge capitalism’s structural foundations. These liberal approaches often have the only outcome to better integrate LGBTQI+ individuals into the capitalist system, often facilitated by the interclass nature of these movements, leaving the material concerns of working-class LGBTQI+ individuals largely unaddressed. By framing struggles for gender and LGBTQI+ equality within a liberal and individualist paradigm that promotes the ‘intersection’ of different oppressions, the ruling class can water down the class element of this demand, diverting attention from the systemic exploitation and discrimination faced by LGBTQI+ workers. In these campaigns, capitalism is often portrayed as something negative, which nevertheless can allow progress if only the people change the way in which they think or act – a narrative that undermines any more fundamental critique of the system itself. This co-optation of progressive movements allows the ruling class to present capitalism as inherently adaptable and inclusive, not only obscuring the deeper structural inequalities embedded within it but also reinforcing the very system that perpetuates exploitation and inequality.
While discrimination towards LGBTQI+ individuals must be fought immediately, it will end only with a fundamental transformation of society, which involves the overthrow of capitalism as a system of production. Capitalism intrinsically relies on gendered oppression and discrimination to sustain its structures. Without challenging this system, gender liberation will always remain partial and superficial.
Conclusion
Our ultimate goal is to overthrow capitalism, a battle that can only be won through the unity of the working class. To achieve this, we must address and incorporate in the working class struggle the specific barriers faced by women and LGBTQI+ people under capitalism.
Women’s oppression is rooted in their disproportionate responsibility for unpaid domestic labour and their central role in reproducing the labour force – functions integral to the survival of the capitalist system. These structural barriers limit women’s full participation in the paid workforce and, by extension, the broader class struggle. Overcoming these obstacles requires fighting for immediate changes, such as access to affordable childcare, equal pay, and the dismantling of workplace discrimination. While these are not final goals, they are crucial steps toward enabling women to join the workforce and contribute to the struggle for socialism.
However, integrating women into the workforce under capitalism is only an initial step toward their liberation. Paid employment allows women to challenge economic dependency but also subjects them to wage exploitation and fails to address the ongoing burden of unpaid domestic responsibilities, sometimes worsening individual situations rather than improving them. Nevertheless, integrating women into the workforce is essential to the broader working-class fight for socialism, as this struggle will be fought primarily in workplaces and will require the active participation of all militant and class-conscious workers, men and women alike.
Under socialism, the economic structures that enforce women’s oppression will no longer exist. Responsibilities for social reproduction will be collectivised and shared across society. Socialism will provide the foundation to eliminate economic dependence, dismantle the gendered division of labour, and ensure genuine gender equality. Women will no longer bear the primary responsibility for reproduction of labour beyond the biologically necessary act of childbearing; tasks such as child-rearing, caregiving, and maintain the household work will be collectively organised, allowing women to fully engage in all aspects of social, economic, and political life.
While socialism will remove the material conditions for women’s oppression, the ideological remnants of patriarchy will still need to be confronted. Achieving true gender equality will require ongoing efforts to dismantle patriarchal norms and build new social structures that ensure equitable participation and fulfilment for all members of society – an ongoing objective of the new socialist-communist society.
Similarly, under capitalism, LGBTQI+ people experience widespread social discrimination. While fighting for LGBTQI+ rights is crucial, these struggles must be understood as necessary steps to ensure LGBTQI+ individuals can fully participate in the working-class movement, rather than to isolate their fight on the base of their gender identity. Socialism, by dismantling the economic structures that sustain oppression, and by ensuring access to housing, employment, and healthcare for all, will create the conditions for the genuine affirmation of LGBTQI+ rights.
Ultimately, the fight for women’s and LGBTQI+ liberation can only be part of the broader struggle to overthrow capitalism and build a socialist society. While earning a wage or securing legal rights are essential steps, they must be understood within the larger battle to dismantle the systemic structure that underpins capitalism. True liberation will only be achieved when the structures that sustain exploitation, oppression, and discrimination – whether based on gender, or not – are abolished. Only by uniting the working class across all genders, we will be able to destroy capitalism and build a society where genuine equality is a fundamental reality for all.
Communist Vanguard 2025
References
[1] Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972), 137.
[2] Ibid., p. 137.
[3] Vladimir Lenin, The Emancipation of Women, in Collected Works, Volume 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), 234.
[4] Clara Zetkin, ‘The Working Woman and the Struggle for Socialism’ in Clara Zetkin: Selected Writings, ed. L. S. Colvin and J. P. Stern (London: Bookmarks, 1984), 150-153.
[5] Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin Books, 1976), p. 718.
[6] Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 2004).
[7] Vladimir Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 30 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), 408.