The Anatomy of Prigozhin’s Mutiny and the Future of Russia’s Mercenary Industry (Part One)

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 20 Issue: 111

By: Sergey Sukhankin

July 11, 2023 05:20 PM Age: 16 hours

(Source: The Moscow Times)

On June 23 and 24, the notorious Wagner Group—Russia`s most well-known quasi–private military company (a mercenary army)—headed by its chief, Yevgeny Prigozhin, carried out the so-called “march for justice.” Its declared goal was to teach a lesson to Russia’s corrupt and deceitful military leadership, whose blunders in managing the war against Ukraine has resulted in huge losses (Meduza, June 23). The mutiny, which ended as rapidly and mysteriously as it started, has, however, given analysts much food for thought, exposing multiple fissures in the Kremlin’s military-political architecture.

The seeds of the conflict between Prigozhin and the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD)—which became the declared root cause of the mutiny—were sown during the Syrian and the Libyan civil wars. The first serious conflict between Prigozhin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu occurred in 2018, when tens (if not hundreds) of Wagner fighters in Syria were decimated by an allied strike (the so-called “Deir ez-Zor Massacre”)—reportedly an outcome of disagreements between the MoD and Wagner leadership (see War by Other Means, December 18, 2019). The conflict continued in 2019, when a number of Wagnerites were hit by a strike in Libya losing dozens of battle-hardened fighters (Meduza, October 6, 2019). Later, however, the conflict was said to have been mitigated between the two sides.

Yet, this was only a mirage: The next major regional conflict involving both actors exposed deep animosity between the two—most likely fueled by financial considerations and personal grudges (Meduza, July 12, 2022). When Russia`s poorly executed invasion in Ukraine began to drain its elite forces, the Russian authorities turned to Prigozhin as an unscrupulous but effective manager, whose Wagner forces had achieved palpable results in several regional conflicts since 2014. In addition to generous financial compensation—Russian President Vladimir Putin recently confirmed Moscow’s allocation of $1 billion in annual support to Wagner and another $1 billion to Prigozhin’s business contacts (Kommersant, June 27)—Prigozhin received the exclusive right to recruit convicts (see EDM, August 18, 2022).

A combination of so-called “human wave” attacks and a larger-than-average supply of arms and munitions resulted in Wagner successes in the battles for Popasna, Lysychansk, Soledar and Bakhmut, which marked the zenith of its accomplishments in Ukraine. Huge losses of personnel (T.me/superdolgov, May 23), the “normalization” of ammunition supplies (Wagner started receiving a comparable amount of ammo to other MoD-subordinated formations) and the inability to recruit convicts (Politeka.net, May 29), which impeded Wagner from rapidly replacing fallen fighters, further strained the conflict between Prigozhin and the MoD. As such, Prigozhin, and his fighters, began to openly threaten and humiliate various Russian defense officials. Additionally, the Wagner chief presented an ultimatum that he would withdraw his forces from the frontlines if ammunition supplies were not dramatically increased and General Sergey Surovikin was not appointed as the liaison between Wagner and the MoD (T.me/Prigozhin_hat, May 7).

Meanwhile, the Chechen leadership joined the MoD-Wagner conflict on the side of the Defense Ministry (T.me/ilyashepelin, May 6). As a result, the Chechen side received an unexpected response from a semi-legendary Wagner commander (who had not spoken publicly before), Dmitry Utkin, who covertly threatened the Chechens stating that “we have known each other since the First and Second Chechen wars” (Tsn.ua, June 2); Utkin took part in the Chechen conflicts on the side of the Russian federal troops. Later, a Wagner social media account posted an image of destroyed Grozny with the unambiguous inscription, “We can repeat.”

Interestingly, Prigozhin not only accused the MoD-subordinated volunteer formations for deserting their strategic positions in Bakhmut (Meduza, May 9), he also ridiculed the Gazprom-created PMC “Torch” for surrendering its positions following its first encounter with Ukrainian forces (BBC News Russian, May 10).

However, Prigozhin’s claims and threats were seemingly not heard by his main target audience, namely Putin. Moreover, the Russian president explicitly took the MoD’s side in supporting Shoigu`s demand for all “voluntary” formations (primarily Wagner) to sign a contract confirming their subordination to the MoD by July 1 (Meduza, June 11). The Chechen Akhmad Kadyrov regiment was the first military formation to sign such an agreement (Gazeta.ru, June 12).

The public conflict, which had been gaining momentum since at least December 2022 (Istories.media, February 22), entered its most acute stage when the MoD`s ultimatum to sign a contract to de jure do away with Wagner’s uncontrollable status in the hierarchy of the Russian Armed Forces was officially declared. Understanding that compliance would likely result in the end of Wagner (as an autonomous mercenary formation) and, potentially, Prigozhin himself, on June 23, the Wagner leader posted an interview comprised of several sharp (and by the Russian Criminal Code legally punishable) statements, including (YouTube, June 23):

• The war in Ukraine happened because the Russian MoD had intentionally deceived the Russian people and Putin about Ukraine’s upcoming Western-supported offensive.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was ready for negotiations, but the Russian leadership ignored this being confident in the success of its armed forces.
• Since 2014, the Donbas region has been plagued by officials from the Presidential Administration, with Russian authorities there acting not as saviors (as portrayed by Russian propaganda) but as occupiers.
• The real losses of the Russian army are catastrophic and far higher than the officially published numbers.

On the evening of June 23, a video (rumored to be fake and denied by the MoD) of Russian Armed Forces targeting Wagner’s military base was published. Prigozhin, accusing the MoD of supporting this action, declared his intent to punish Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov, whom he had previously accused of enabling the “genocide of the Russian people” (BBC News Russian, June 23). Henceforth, events began to unravel quickly: a large number—Prigozhin claimed 25,000—of Wagner fighters crossed the Russian border and managed to de facto seize Rostov-on-Don (approximate population of 1.1 million) with little resistance. Simultaneously, several columns of Wagner fighters moved toward Voronezh, Lipetsk and Moscow oblast (Meduza, June 24). While the local authorities and siloviki stayed practically aloof, Wagner forces destroyed several aircraft, causing the deaths of between 10 and 20 pilots (Ukrainska Pravda, June 24). Particularly mysterious was the reaction of Russia’s top-level officials: While Putin publicly appeared on June 24 issuing a rather weak statement (Sib.fm, June 24), Shoigu did not make his first public comment until July 3 (Rosbalt.ru, July 3).

The Wagner mutiny ended as rapidly and unexpectedly as it started: On the evening of June 24, Prigozhin—after negotiations with Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka—declared an end to the “march for justice.” Later, Putin`s press secretary Dmitry Peskov (Interfax.ru, June 24) and then the Russian Federal Security Service (BBC News Russian, June 27) stated that the criminal case against Prigozhin had been dropped. On June 26, Putin in another public statement offered three options for Wagner and its leadership: go to Belarus, sign a contract with the MoD and remain in the warzone, or “return back home” (Izvestiya, June 27).

Leaving Rostov, Prigozhin—who looked neither discouraged nor terrified—made two interesting statements. First, he declared that the “result [of the mutiny] was normal. We have shaken everyone up” (Info24.ru, June 26). Second, in once again mocking the Russian MoD, he said that, in Rostov, “we have demonstrated a master class. That is how February 24 should have looked” (News.rambler.ru, June 26). And with reports coming out that Prigozhin and some of his men met with Putin in Moscow on June 29, there is a good chance that this story is far from over (The Moscow Times, July 10).

How Wagner's revolt could impact Russia's influence in Libya

Analysis
Ferhat Polat
06 July, 2023

Analysis: Wagner has been a critical tool for securing Russia's geostrategic interests in Libya, but the recent mutiny has cast doubts over the group's future operations in the country.

Russia's infamous Wagner paramilitary company has been involved in various global conflicts, including those in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Africa.

However, the recent failed mutiny by the group, led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, raises questions about the future of the group's extensive network of military and commercial activities in these regions, particularly in Africa.

The failed rebellion highlighted internal issues within the Wagner group and cast doubts on their effectiveness and reliability as a paramilitary force. It could also potentially lead to a loss of trust and credibility for Russia, making it difficult for Moscow to maintain its presence and influence in Africa and other regions where they have been active.

In recent years, Russia has used the Wagner Group's services to advance its objectives while avoiding direct military engagement and maintaining plausible deniability.


"Moscow has strategically positioned itself as a significant player in Libya's political landscape through the Wagner group"

The recent fallout between Prigozhin and President Vladimir Putin, which resulted in the Wagner leader’s exile to Belarus and the subsequent dispersal of his extensive mercenary network, has cast doubt on the future stability and coherence of the entire framework. While some have joined him in exile, other members are being forced to enlist in the Russian military.

The potential withdrawal of Wagner fighters from Africa, particularly in Libya, is expected to impact Russia's geostrategic interests significantly. Russia has been strategically using Wagner fighters to bolster its presence and pursue economic and political benefits in the country. The replacement of Wagner forces in Libya, therefore, may present certain challenges.

Russia's approach to Libya is multi-faceted, as it involves a range of interests spanning geostrategic, economic, political, and military considerations. One of the primary objectives of Russia's involvement is to establish a prominent foothold in the Mediterranean region.

RELATED

Has Wagner's mutiny weakened Russia in the Middle East?

Analysis

Giorgio Cafiero

“The Wagner group found Libya a significant opportunity to establish a presence in Africa, especially considering Russia's limited involvement in the continent at the time,” Andreas Krieg, associate professor of security studies at King's College London, told The New Arab.

“The accomplishments of the past five years are quite significant. Russia's presence in the region is not solely focused on expanding its influence, particularly in the security sector through the Wagner group.”

Wagner has played a crucial role in Russia's involvement in Libya. The mercenary group became involved in the Libyan theatre in 2019 by aligning themselves with militia leader Khalifa Haftar.

Their intervention was intended to provide support for Haftar's offensive against the government based in Tripoli, which is internationally recognised. A 14 month-siege of Libya’s capital ended in failure, and Wagner fighters redeployed to an array of oil facilities and nearby military bases in both central Libya and the southwest.

The mercenary group became involved in the Libyan theatre in 2019 by aligning themselves with militia leader Khalifa Haftar. [Getty]


Despite Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army's failure to capture Tripoli, the assistance provided by Wagner fighters had been significant in maintaining control over eastern and southern parts of Libya. This control allows him to exert influence over key oil fields and infrastructure, giving him leverage in negotiations and a source of revenue to fund his military operations.

“Moscow aims to access strategic resources and establish partnerships with various companies. The system consists of multiple companies rather than a single entity interconnected within the network. In the field of logistics, they are involved in the extraction industry, which is loosely connected to the Russian state and integrated into the network of production and environment,” Krieg said.

“The events mentioned have had great importance for Russian statecraft. They marked the start of operations in Africa and established a strong presence, primarily by establishing a base in southern Libya. This base continues to serve as a crucial strategic point for expanding further into Sub-Saharan Africa.”

"Wagner's presence in Libya has directly supported its activities in the Sahel and Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Chad, the Central African Republic, and Mali"

Haftar’s forces, however, are somewhat fragmented. Without these foreign fighters, mainly Wagner mercenaries, the LNA as a collection of militias and mercenary organisations would be unable to maintain its hold on eastern Libya.

“The LNA is and remains a militia, comprising a network of loosely affiliated militia groups. Despite referring to themselves as an army, the reality is that these groups are diverse and revolve around Haftar, his family, and his inner circle. Their lack of training, direction, and expertise in urban combat made them reliant on external support, particularly from Wagner,” Krieg told TNA.

The Wagner Group's involvement was strategically significant, as their knowledge and capabilities, especially in urban warfare, provided an advantage to the LNA.

Without the intervention of Turkey, including the deployment of Turkish drones, it would have been exceedingly challenging for the Tripoli government to have withstood the LNA-Wagner offensive in 2020.

RELATED

The Wagner factor: Russia's return to Africa

Analysis

Ruslan Trad

Without an alternative foreign security umbrella, the withdrawal of Wagner would pose a significant threat to Haftar's influence in eastern and southern Libya. The absence of the mercenary outfit would not only weaken Haftar’s military strength, but it would also create a power vacuum that Tripoli’s forces could potentially exploit.

Moscow has used the Wagner Group to pursue strategic goals in Libya and beyond. The objectives include Moscow's aim to consolidate its geostrategic presence in the country, including military bases across Libya, such as Jufra and Al-Khadim. These bases not only allow Russia to project power in the region but also serve as a means to counter Western influence in North Africa.

By strategically establishing a robust presence in Libya, Russia has the potential to safeguard and advance its economic and energy interests. Ensuring control over Libya's energy infrastructure is of utmost importance.

One practical approach to achieve this objective involves exerting influence over Sirte, a strategically positioned coastal city that serves as the gateway to the country’s oil fields. Since 2020, Wagner fighters have reportedly remained entrenched in and around key oil facilities in Libya, such as Ras Lanuf, Sidra oil terminals, and Sharara oil field in southwestern Libya, the country's largest, with a bpd capacity of 300,000.

The failed mutiny raises questions about the future of Wagner's extensive network of military and commercial activities in the Middle East and Africa. [Getty]

Furthermore, Wagner's presence in Libya has directly supported its activities in the Sahel and Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Chad, the Central African Republic (CAR), and Mali. For instance, in 2022, Russia used an air base near Benghazi, called Khadim, as a logistics hub to transfer personnel and equipment to Mali.

In recent years, Moscow has strategically positioned itself as a significant player in Libya's political landscape through the Wagner group, which has been and will likely remain an important tool for securing Russia’s geostrategic interests.

Wagner fighters reportedly remain active in eastern Libya and the country's south, and as yet it's unclear whether they will integrate into the Russian armed forces or continue operating as a private military company.

However, their presence in Libya suggests that Russia is committed to maintaining its influence in the region and will continue to use the Wagner Group as a means to achieve its objectives.

Ferhat Polat is a researcher at the University of Exeter, specialising in North African geopolitics and security and focusing on Libyan affairs. He is regularly invited as a commentator on news channels. He has written a number of essays and articles on geopolitical issues, which have been published in various journals, newspapers, and digital outlets.

Follow him on Twitter: @Ferhattpol

NATO's choices affect the whole world

The 21st century's most powerful military bloc is playing an increasingly diverse and global role. Any misstep would have an impact not only on its members, but everyone else

THE NATIONAL
EDITORIAL

From left, US President Joe Biden, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Portugal's Prime Minister Antonio Costa, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis during a group photo at the Nato summit in Vilnius, Lithuania on Tuesday. AP

When a club decides to admit a new member, that is usually business for the club alone. When that club is the world’s most powerful military alliance, stretching from the shores of Alaska to the western borders of Russia, it becomes a matter for anyone concerned about international stability and the rules-based order.

Major changes are taking place within Nato as its leaders meet in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital. From an organisation born as a postwar opposition bloc to the Soviet Union, the alliance is not only growing in Europe – thanks to the imminent admission of Sweden – it is also expanding its reach in the Indo-Pacific region or, as the organisation puts it, “strengthening dialogue and co-operation with its partners … Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand”. This is to say nothing of the considerable involvement of some Nato members in the Ukraine conflict.

There was a time, not that long ago, when a Nato summit would pass relatively unremarked, reported on mainly by defence and security specialists. Now, given the alliance’s changing composition and trajectory, as well as continental Europe’s latest war, many non-Nato countries will be keeping a watching brief on the bloc’s developing, higher-profile and consequential role in geopolitical affairs.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attends the Nato summit 

in Lithuania where he backed Sweden's application for membership. EPA

For example, Nato says it wants to get more involved in the fight against terrorism – often regarded as a task more aptly suited to international policing and intelligence gathering. Nevertheless, Nato has said this week it is set to appoint its first special co-ordinator for counter-terrorism.

Indeed, terrorism was just one of issues that dogged Sweden’s bid to join the alliance, with Turkey withholding ratification while demanding assurances from Stockholm regarding supporters of Kurdish separatists operating in its territory. A statement after three-way talks this week said that Turkey and Sweden would also work closely on bilateral trade and Ankara’s wider European agenda, including on EU accession and visa liberalisation. Enmeshing political and economic issues in a country’s journey to joining a military alliance is one example of how Nato – whether intentionally or not – is developing a weightier role, not only in military affairs but in how countries relate to each other bilaterally.

Sweden's journey from de facto to fully fledged Nato member will have been watched closely by other nations – particularly Ukraine, which is already asking that it be regarded effectively as a Nato country. This call will be made again at a high-level meeting between Ukraine’s leadership and Nato figures today but, given US President Joe Biden’s recent statement that Kyiv is not ready for membership, it seems unlikely that the alliance will gain a 33rd member soon.

THE NATIONAL EDITORIAL

Emiratisation is deepening the talent pool for jobs in the UAE

When it comes to driverless vehicles, the UAE will be one to watch

Whether Twitter or Threads, the world still wants to talk to itself in real time

Nevertheless, Nato is currently enjoying an invigorated position amid a challenging international security environment. With its main member, the US, being led by an unapologetically pro-Nato Mr Biden, the alliance has the time and stability to develop further. But its next steps will have to be cautious ones. The reality is that Russia, which wanted less Nato but is now faced with more, remains deeply distrustful of the organisation. The dangers posed by two antagonistic military forces facing off in Eastern Europe are already clear.

Multinational organisations inevitably develop and evolve. Indeed, this is vital to remaining relevant in a rapidly changing world. When it comes to an organisation that commands an unparalleled level of force, that growth must take place with the knowledge that a misstep will not just affect the club’s members, but everyone else as well. With great power comes great responsibility.

Published: July 11, 2023, 9:00 PM

 

China calls for early release of investigation results on Nord Stream blasts

(Xinhua) 15:43, July 12, 2023

UNITED NATIONS, July 11 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese envoy on Tuesday called for an early release of the results of a country-specific investigation into the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion that happened nearly 10 months ago.

According to Geng Shuang, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, the nations involved have been looking into the Nord Stream pipeline blasts for a while, but no definitive statement has been released.

"The longer the delay, the more difficult it will be to collect evidence and find the truth, the more doubts and speculations will occur, and the less credible the results of the investigations will be," he told a Security Council briefing on the Nord Stream issue.

China believes that the best way to respond to the concerns of the international community is to announce the results of the investigation as soon as possible, he added.

The Nord Stream pipeline explosions occurred against the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis, Geng said, noting that the parties concerned have made very different analyses and interpretations in the wake of the incident. "We call on all parties not to politicize investigations and not use it as an opportunity for political manipulation," he said.

Geng stressed that Russia is one of the main parties involved in the incident. Any objective and impartial investigation requires communication and cooperation with Russia.

The envoy reiterated China's call for an early clarification of the facts surrounding the explosion and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. Geng said China favors the UN Secretariat providing more helpful information and the Security Council staying updated on the issue.

(Web editor: Zhang Kaiwei, Liang Jun)

ROFLMAO; SCHMUCK

Roseanne Barr accuses Volodymyr Zelensky of being the “wrong kind of Jew”

Controversial American comedian tells Piers Morgan Ukraine is full of Nazis

By JEWISH NEWS REPORTERJuly 12, 2023, 

Roseanne Barr rants at Piers Morgan on Talk TV

Just weeks after hitting the headlines over vile comments she made about the Holocaust, American comedian Roseanne Barr has lashed out at  Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky and claimed that his country is “full of Nazis”.

Appearing as a guest on Piers Morgan’s Uncensored Talk TV show, Barr very quickly turned the interview into a rant about her mistrust of the media, followed by her yelling: “I’m about to go crazy sitting here on the earphone hearing the stuff you all are saying about the Ukraine. I’m about to have a heart attack but I’m not even gonna go into it.”

Morgan, who has made controversial interviews a feature of his week day nighttime show on the Murdoch-owned channel,  was virtually silent as Barr went on to say –  “I’m from the Ukraine. There’s a large amount of Nazis in the Ukraine. They actually killed my whole family. They marched my entire family, grandmothers, great grandparents, ten siblings, out into the forest and buried them alive in the Ukraine.”

Born in Salt Lake City, Utah, Barr’s maternal family is from Hungary/Lithuania, while her father’s family is from Russia and she openly supports the Russian invasion. The comedian, who was sacked from her eponymous comedy series in 2018 because of racist remarks on Twitter, said that people who support Ukraine “terrify” her. When Morgan attempted to disagree with her view and raise Zelensky’s Jewish heritage,  she insisted the President is the “wrong type of Jew”.

“Are all Jews the same for God’s sake? Talk about antisemitic!” screeched Barr. “Just cause the guy’s a Jew doesn’t mean he likes Jews or that he is doing anything good for the Jews!”

Moving on to falsely allege the US state department supports the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, she then raised her concern in colourful terms about self-identification in the Trans community and noted the impact of this on women and children.

Last month Barr while appearing on American comedian Theo Von’s podcast, supported Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win, in spite of being wildly opposed to it publicly.

“Biden got 81 million votes in 36 districts. That is the truth, and nobody died in the Holocaust either. That’s the truth. It should happen, six million Jews should die right now because they cause all the problems in the world but it never happened.”

Barr has since claimed she was being sarcastic, which Morgan said he understood. But could she see how this could be misinterpreted, he asked. The comedian could not, though the backlash to her ‘sarcasm’ saw the left accuse the Jewish performer of being antisemitic, while  the Jewish community claimed deep offence. “Sarcasm or not, Roseanne Barr’s comments about Jews and the Holocaust are reprehensible and irresponsible,” said Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League.

The 15 minute interview on Monday night with Morgan, who is currently hosting his show from New York, resulted in a further backlash for the comedian who was described as either :genuinely mentally ill” or ” just a spectacularly s*** human” on multiple US media sites the next day. Morgan’s final comment was to thank Barr for living up to the “uncensored billing” of his show.

ACTUAL CULTURAL MARXISM




Feminism, Intersectionality, and Marxism


Josefina L. Martínez

July 11, 2023

Debates on gender, race, and class: How can the working class become hegemonic in struggles against oppression?


Intersectionality is a word that is frequently used in academia, among feminist activists, and in social movements. “Class, race and gender” are, as Terry Eagleton pointed out, the “contemporary holy trinity.”1 There is a lot of discourse about intersectionality, but the definition of the term is often unclear. Is it a theory or an empirical description? Does it operate in the realm of individual subjectivity or does it analyze systems of domination? And finally, what does it say about the causes of intersecting oppressions and, above all, about the paths toward emancipation?

Although reflections on the relationship between gender, race, and class had long existed in Marxist debates and among the left, the concept of intersectionality was defined for the first time as such in a 1989 article by Black lawyer and feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw2 that aimed to answer these questions in the context of U.S. anti-discrimination law. That origin undoubtedly marked the concept, as we will see later. However, its most important precedent is in the work of Black feminists of the 1970s, such as those of the Combahee River Collective, who offered an “intersectional” critique of liberation movements in the context of Second Wave feminism and the political radicalization of the time.

In this article, I briefly summarize the historical background of the concept, its first formulations, how it shifted with the rise of postmodernism, and the ongoing debate on the concept within today’s social movements. I also critically contrast the theories of intersectionality with Marxism.
1. The Combahee River Collective and Black Feminists

The Combahee River Collective Statement, published in 1977, took its name as a tribute to the brave military actions led by former slave and abolitionist Harriet Tubman in 1863, which led 750 enslaved people to liberation through enemy fire. She was the only woman to run an army operation during the U.S. Civil War.

Black feminists in the 1970s saw themselves as part of a historical tradition of Black women’s struggles dating back to the 19th century. In her book Women, Race and Class,3, Angela Davis referred to their role in the U.S. abolitionist movement. Sojourner Truth’s speech at the Ohio Women’s Convention for women’s suffrage in 1851 went down in history. One man had argued that women couldn’t vote because they were the “weaker sex,” to which Sojourner Truth gave a powerful response:


I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man — when I could get it — and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery … And ain’t I a woman?

Her response was a rebuttal of the patriarchal narrative that constructed “femininity” based on the idea that women are weak, “naturally” inferior beings incapable of exercising political citizenship. But it also challenged the many white suffragettes who neglected the demands of Black and working women.

In the mid-1970s, a number of Black women, having had negative experiences in the white feminist movement and in organizations for Black liberation, decided to revive that tradition and form their own militant groups. With the publication of the Combahee River Collective Statement, Black feminists simultaneously questioned white feminism, the Black movement, and the bourgeois Black feminism of the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO).

Their starting point was the shared experience of simultaneous oppressions rooted in the trilogy of class, race, and gender, to which they added sexual oppression. From there, they aimed their critique against the feminist movement that was hegemonized by radical feminism. This current of feminism interpreted social contradictions through the opposition between “sexual classes”4 and prioritized one system of domination — the patriarchy — over all others5. While questioning the preeminence of sexual or gender oppression over that of race and class, Black feminists also debated against the openly separatist tendencies that promoted a “war of the sexes,” which had gained strength in the feminist movement of the late 1970s. The Black feminists defined this type of feminism as a movement guided by the interests of white, middle-class women. They also maintained that any kind of biological determination of identity could lead to reactionary positions.


Although we are feminists and Lesbians, we feel solidarity with progressive Black men and do not advocate the fractionalization that white women who are separatists demand.

In her book Feminism Is for Everybody, Black feminist bell hooks argues that, in those years, “utopian visions of sisterhood” and the ahistorical definition of patriarchy were challenged by debates around race and class. Taking stock of this period, she asserts that “white women who had attempted to organize the movement around the banner of common oppression evoking the notion that women constituted a sexual class/caste were the most reluctant to acknowledge differences among women.” She also highlights the debate with the separatist currents within the movement:


They portrayed all men as the enemy in order to represent all women as victims. This focus on men deflected attention from the class privilege of individual feminist activists as well as their desire to increase their class power.6

The Combahee River Collective Statement characterized the struggle for the emancipation of Black women and Black people as inseparable from the struggle against the capitalist system. That is why its authors explicitly supported the fight for socialism:


We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy. We are socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products … We are not convinced, however, that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation.

In relation to Marxism, they asserted a fundamental agreement with Marx’s theory regarding “specific economic relations,” but they believed that the analysis had to be “extended further in order for us to understand our specific economic situation as Black women.” It should be noted that although they expressed the need for a socialist revolution, the practical tasks they proposed as a group were limited above all to self-awareness workshops and the struggle for the specific rights of Black women in their neighborhoods.

The notion of identity politics appears in the Statement as a response to the specific way in which Black women experience oppression. Recognition of one’s own identity is considered necessary for converging, a posteriori, with other liberation movements. There is tension between the constitution of a differentiated identity and convergence with other oppressed people to fight against a system that combines forms of economic, sexual, and racial domination.

A few years later, however, as the social, political, and ideological context drastically changed with the rise of neoliberalism and postmodernism, the concept of intersectionality would take on new meaning. With the radical transformation of society no longer on the horizon, the moment for collective action tended to dissipate, and differentiated “identities” and the demand for policies of recognition within capitalist society began to increase.
2. Intersectionality as a Category of Discrimination

Kimberlé Crenshaw first defined the concept of intersectionality in 1989. She highlighted that the separate treatment of race and gender discriminations as “mutually exclusive categories of experience and analysis” had problematic consequences for legal doctrine, feminist theory, and anti-racist politics. She thus proposed that a contrast should be drawn between “the multidimensionality of Black women’s experience [and] the single-axis analysis that distorts these experiences.”

She pointed out that any conceptualization based on a single axis of discrimination (whether it be race, gender, sexuality, or class) erases Black women from identification and the possibility of ending discrimination, limiting the analysis to the experiences of privileged members of each group. Racial discrimination tends to be viewed from the perspective of Black people with gender or class privileges, while with gender discrimination the focus is on white women with economic resources. Since “the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.”

In her analysis, Crenshaw examines how several lawsuits brought by Black women were simply dismissed by the judiciary. In one case, DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, five women sued the multinational, alleging employment discrimination because as Black women they were denied promotions to better positions. The court dismissed the lawsuit, claiming that it was not possible to establish the existence of discrimination because they were “Black women,” as they did not constitute a group subject to special discrimination. Instead, the court agreed to an investigation of whether racial or gender segregation had occurred, but “not a combination of both.” Finally, it determined that since GM had hired women – white women – there was no gender discrimination involved. And since the company had also hired Black people – Black men – there was no racial discrimination involved either.

The Black women’s lawsuit was unsuccessful. The court claimed that its admission would open up a “Pandora’s box.”

Crenshaw points out that the objective of intersectionality is to recognize that Black women may experience discrimination that has complex forms, which the single-axis conceptual framework fails to address. In the late 1980s, the concept of intersectionality emerged as a category for addressing the complexity of experiences of “discrimination,” with the aim of establishing new case law that would allow “diversity policies” to be regulated by the state.

Later, U.S. sociologist and scholar of Black feminism Patricia Hill Collins defined intersectionality as “being constructed within an historically specific matrix of domination characterized by intersecting oppressions.”7 In her view, intersectionality defines a “social justice” project that seeks a convergence or coalitions with other “social justice projects.”

The concept of intersectionality was subsequently developed by many other Black, Latina, and Asian feminist intellectuals within the expanding framework of “Women Studies” in academia. Intersectionality became a buzzword at conferences and symposia, and in research departments. NGOs were created to develop intersectional studies in the fields of economics, law, sociology, culture, and public policy. Other vectors of oppression were added to the trilogy of gender, race, and class, such as sexuality, nationality, age, and functional diversity. But while this increased the visibility of the specific oppression faced by multiple groups and communities, it paradoxically developed in a climate of resignation to capitalist social structures, which had come to be perceived as impossible to challenge.
3. Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Multiple Differences

The rise of intersectionality studies in academia coincided with the beginning of a new historical phase that completely transformed the intellectual and political climate under neoliberalism. The period of “Bourgeois Restoration”8 or neoliberal boom saw generalized attacks on workers’ gains worldwide, with privatization and deregulation policies running rampant given the defection of the trade union and political leaderships of the working class. This led to an increase in the internal fragmentation of the working class and a huge loss of class subjectivity.

In this new context, the radicalism of the Black feminists and socialists of the Combahee River Collective gave way to a formulation of intersectionality in the framework of an increased fragmentation of subjects, from a postmodern perspective. The idea of ​​intersectionality became more akin to that of “diversity” and “identity politics.” Such a formulation shifts the focus from the collective to the individual, from the material to the subjective, in a process of “culturalization” of the relations of domination. It generalizes the idea that the struggle of oppressed groups fundamentally involves acquiring self-awareness of their own identity — a “situated knowledge” — to ensure that privileged groups (men, white women, heterosexual women, etc.) “deconstruct” their privileges and recognize diversity. In the framework of the postmodern “cultural shift,” identities are presented as exclusively constructed in discourse, so the possibilities of resisting are restricted to the establishment of a counter-narrative.

This perspective, however, cannot be applied to class exploitation: Can we expect those who own the means of production — bankers and capitalists — to “deconstruct” their power through self-reflection? In reality, the proposition is also useless as a strategy for ending racism, heterosexism, and sexism, unless these “axes of domination” are considered to be separate entities that operate exclusively in the cultural or ideological sphere, rather than being intertwined with the material and structural relations of capitalism.

Conversely, the multiplication of an increasingly extensive series of oppressed identities, without considering the possibility of radically transforming the capitalist social relations on which these oppressions are based, gave rise to practices of “ghettoization” and separation in activism. Pratibha Parmar warned of this problem in her work:


There has been an emphasis on accumulating a collection of oppressed identities which in turn have given rise to hierarchy of oppression. Such scaling has not only been destructive, but divisive and immobilising. … [M]any women have retreated into ghettoised “lifestyle politics” and find themselves unable to move beyond personal and individual experience.9

As the counterpart to this impotence, the capitalist system appropriated the explosion of “diversity” as a market of identities, which it could assimilate as long as they did not challenge the social system as a whole. Terry Eagleton noted with regard to postmodernism:


One would be forced to claim that [given] its single most enduring achievement, the fact that it has helped to place questions of sexuality, gender and ethnicity so firmly on the political agenda, that it is impossible to imagine them being erased without an almighty struggle was nothing more than a substitute for more classical forms of radical politics which dealt in class, state, ideology, revolution, material modes of production.10

In a footnote, however, Eagleton clarified that it had not been postmodern intellectuals who had placed those issues on the political agenda, but the previous action of social movements through struggles in the 1960s and 1970s. Once that wave of political radicalization was defeated, the visibility of issues of race, gender and sexuality grew, while class became increasingly invisible (to the point that some authors have written about the disappearance of the working class as such).
4. The Retreat from Class Politics

In the class/race/gender trilogy, class tended to be diluted, or became just another identity, as if it were a category of social stratification (by income) or type of occupation. Citing Collins, Marta E. Giménez11 notes that one of the characteristic elements of intersectionality theories is the assumption that “in order to theorise these connections it is necessary ‘to support a working hypothesis of equivalency between oppressions’,” but that this leads to the elimination of the specificity of class relations.

Against this view, it is necessary to point out that race, gender, and class are not directly comparable categories. This does not mean that we must establish a hierarchy of grievances, or determine which is most important to people’s subjective experience; the goal is to achieve a greater understanding of the relationship between oppression and exploitation in capitalist society.

For example, class, race, and gender operate very differently in relation to “equality” and “difference.” Historically, the bourgeoisie has tried to camouflage class “social differences” as much as possible behind an “egalitarian” ideology of “free contract.” But it uses racism and sexism to establish “differences” that are attributed to biological or “natural” conditions to justify inequality in the distribution of resources and access to rights and to defend the persistence of a certain division of labor or, simply put, the enslavement of millions of people, dehumanizing them.

From an emancipatory perspective, the objective is to ensure that no difference in skin color, birthplace, biological sex, or sexual choice can be used as a basis for oppression, grievances, or inequality, while recognizing diversity and promoting the development of the creative potential of all individuals within the framework of social cooperation. But in the case of class differences, the aim is to eliminate them completely, as such. Through its struggle against capitalist social relations, the working class seeks to eliminate the private ownership of the means of production, which entails the elimination of the bourgeoisie as a class and the possibility of ending all class society.

What structures capitalist society is the social difference between the owners of the means of production and those who are forced to sell their labor power in exchange for wages, beyond all attempts to render this contradiction invisible. Patriarchal relations — which emerged thousands of years before capitalism — and racism are not ahistorical entities, but have taken on new forms and a specific social content in the framework of capitalist social relations.

Capitalism uses patriarchal prejudices to establish an unprecedented differentiation between the “public” and the “private,” between the sphere of production and the sphere of the home, where women sustain — through invisible work — a large part of the tasks of social reproduction of the labor power needed for the reproduction of capital. Institutions such as the family, marriage, and heterosexual normativity, reformulated under new social relations, socialize and naturalize this role for women. The multiple manifestations of gender oppression and the painful grievances that they imply for millions of women through violence and femicide are not “reducible” to class relations, but they cannot be explained without connecting the categories of oppression and exploitation.

Racism was used to provide an ideological justification for enslaving millions of human beings, while at the same time the Enlightenment elevated the ideas of “freedom,” “equality,” and “fraternity” as a basis for the “rights of man.” Racism accompanied and reinforced the massive colonialist endeavors of imperialist states, as well as internal genocides such that carried out in the United States against indigenous peoples. Since the U.S. Civil War and the abolition of slavery, racism has continued to be used to exclude of a large part of the country’s population, which is treated as “second-class citizens” and “second-class workers.” This promotes internal division within the U.S. working class. In turn, as Black feminists have pointed out, racial oppression and gender oppression are masterfully combined to maximize capitalist profits: it is a fact that there is a larger wage gap for Black and Latina women workers in the United States, just as there is disproportionate institutional and police violence against Black youth. It is also used to support racist and xenophobic policies against migrants in Europe, where they are treated as second-class workers and lack basic social and democratic rights.
5. Marxism and Intersectionality

In Capital, Marx wrote, “Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded.” In an earlier work, he and Friedrich Engels had pointed out that “social progress, changes of historical periods, take place in direct proportion to the progress of women towards freedom; and the decline of a social order occurs in proportion to the reduction of women’s freedom”, paraphrasing the utopian socialist Fourier. In The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels had specifically analyzed the reality of working women who were entering the sphere of capitalist production in large numbers and experiencing the twofold grievances of oppression and exploitation. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels continued the incomplete ethnological studies carried out by his friend to develop an analysis of the family institution in history and the oppression of women.

Revolutionary Marxism has analyzed the relationship between exploitation and oppression in other ways as well. For example, Marx and Engels maintained that the English proletariat could not be free if its rights were based on the oppression of Irish workers. Later, Lenin argued that a people that oppresses another people cannot be free, and defended the right to national self-determination as well as the fight against colonial oppression.

In her critique of intersectionality theories, Lise Vogel correctly argues that socialist feminists of the 1960s and 1970s had already highlighted the intersection between patriarchy, racism, and capitalism before the term intersectionality became popular. It is important to note, however, that a long tradition of socialist feminist thought had developed long before that period, from Flora Tristán to Engels and Clara Zetkin, the Russian revolutionaries, and many others. This led to important international socialist women’s conferences and programs and organizations of peasant and working women. The Transitional Program written by Leon Trotsky and adopted by the Fourth International in 1938, includes among its slogans the need to “Open the road to the Woman Worker! Open the Road to the Youth!” and to seek “support among the most exploited layers of the working class.”

Intersectionality theorists often criticize Marxism for what they consider to be “class reductionism.” But defending the centrality of a “class analysis” does not mean limiting it to the activity of unions in wage struggles. That is a corporatist, economist, or narrowly syndicalist perspective of class. It is true that the 20th-century practices of many of the Stalinized Communist parties, as well as the trade union bureaucracies, were based on these narrow corporate politics, thus deepening the divide between “class politics” and the struggle of movements against oppression. But only by falsely equating Stalinism with Marxism is it possible to assert that Marxism has not considered the “intersection” of class exploitation with gender oppression, racism, colonial oppression, and heterosexism.

A class analysis aims to reveal the relationships that structure capitalist society, based not only on the generalized expropriation of surplus value for the accumulation of capital, but also on the appropriation of women’s reproductive work in the home, as well as on the concentration of capital in large monopolies, the expansion of financial capital, and the competition between imperialist states that lead to global wars and plunder. It also examines how capital uses and establishes “differences,” fueling racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic ideologies to maximize exploitation and provoke divisions within the ranks of the working class. This class analysis, far from expressing an “economic reductionist” view, includes the interaction of political and social elements and allows a deeper understanding of the connection between class relations and racism, patriarchy, and heterosexism.

At the same time, it recognizes that if the working class — which in the 21st century is more diverse, racialized, and feminized than ever before — manages to overcome its internal divisions and fragmentation, it has the unique capacity to destroy capitalism and place the entire economy, industry, transport and communications system under its control as the basis for organizing a new society of free producers. The retreat from “class politics” actually means abandoning the struggle against the capitalist system, without which it is impossible to put an end to the terrible injustices caused by exploitation and oppression based on race, gender or sexuality.

Since the capitalist crisis of 2008, with the emergence of new resistance movements against neoliberal policies, some sectors of feminist activists, anti-racist, and the youth movements have been defending the idea of “intersectionality” in a new sense to form coalitions among various oppressed groups. The women’s movement that organized the March 8, 2018, strikes in the Spanish State, for example, has itself as an “anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-colonial, and anti-fascist” movement. This was undoubtedly a very important step forward toward the convergence of struggles and a countertrend to the logic of fragmentation. However, the sum or “intersection” of resistance movements is insufficient if they are not connected with a common strategy to defeat capitalism, without which it is impossible to end racism or patriarchal oppression.

It is not about counterposing “movements” or “identities” to an abstract and genderless working class. Never before in history has the working class been so diverse in terms of gender and race. Women already make up 50 percent of the working class, and of that Black, Latin, and Asian women are the majority. The key to a hegemonic strategy, then, is to return to the centrality of class politics that decisively incorporates the fight against all oppression based on gender, race, and sexuality. This means seeking to unite what capitalism divides, strengthening the internal unity of the working class, as well as adopting a policy of alliances with movements that fight against specific oppression. This perspective, along with the fight to expropriate the expropriators, is the only one that will allow progress toward a truly free society.

First published in Spanish on February 24, 2019, in Contrapunto.

Translation by Marisela Trevin


Notes

Notes↑1 Terry Eagleton, Against the Grain: Essays 1975–1985 (London, UK: Verso, 1986).
↑2 Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics,” in Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender, ed. by Katharine T. Bartlett and Rosanne Kennedy (New York, NY: Routledge, 1991).
↑3 Angela Y. Davis, Women, Race, and Class (New York, NY: Knopf, 1981).
↑4 Whether in terms of the radical feminism of Shulamith Firestone in a 1970 essay or the materialist feminism of Cristine Delphy from 1980. See Shulamith Firestone, “The Dialectic of Sex,” in Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader, ed. by Barbara A. Crow (New York, NY, New York University Press, 2000); Christine Delphy, “The Main Enemy,” Feminist Issues 1, no. 1 (1980): 23–40.
↑5 As formulated by Kate Millet in Sexual Politics: A Surprising Examination of Society’s Most Arbitrary Folly (New York: Doubleday, 1970).
↑6 bell hooks, Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000).
↑7 Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment (New York, NY: Routledge, 1990), 127.
↑8 Emilio Albamonte and Matías Maiello, “At the Limits of the ‘Bourgeois Restoration,’” Left Voice, December 24, 2019. First published in Spanish in 2011.
↑9 Pratibha Parmar, “Black Feminism: The Politics of Articulation,” in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, ed. by Jonathan Rutherford (London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), 107.
↑10 Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 1996), 22.
↑11 Marta E. Giménez, Marx, Women, and Capitalist Social Reproduction: Marxist Feminist Essays: (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishers, 2019.


Josefina L. Martínez
Josefina is a historian from Madrid and an editor of our sister site in the Spanish State, IzquierdaDiario.es.