Liberty P Sproat. Aspasia. Volume 6, Issue 1. 2012.
In her introduction to the first issue of Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale (The communist women’s international), Clara Zetkin—a renowned and highly influential German socialist, politician, and fighter for women’s rights in the early twentieth century, responsible for initiating International Women’s Day in 1910—asserted that female comrades in all countries showed passionate interest in hearing every piece of news from the land of the victorious revolution. (“In allen Landern lauschen die Genossinnen mit leidenschaftlichem Interesse auf jede Nachricht aus dem Reiche der siegreichen Revolution”). To this end, the periodical Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale (KFI), a monthly journal published from 1921 to 1925, worked through the Communist International to present updates on the development of a variety of both socialist and feminist movements throughout the world. In addition, the KFI offered reports on the situation of women in Soviet Russia. From reports of International Women’s Day celebrations in Moscow, in which women promoted equal legal and social rights in addition to honoring the place of women in socialism, to statistical reviews of the institutions established to aid working women, the KFI used the example of Soviet Russia to illustrate for its readers what life for women entailed in a country that had experienced a successful communist revolution.
Zetkin is considered one of the heroes of the socialist feminist movement, and historians such as Barbara Clements and Richard Evans and biographers such as Karen Honeycutt, Gilbert Badia, Luise Dornemann, and Tania Puschnerat have extensively published about her life and work. In researching Zetkin, however, historians have neglected exploration of the KFI, a source which perhaps proves more than any other of her works her devotion to worldwide communist revolution and her support of the Soviet solution for women. So intense was her interest in global communism that she founded an organization—albeit an organization mostly on paper—that addressed women’s issues in a global communist context.
The use of the Soviet model in the KFI aligned with Clara Zetkin’s own goals for encouraging female support of international communist revolution. More so than her previous periodicals, the KFI emphasized Zetkin’s interest in international movements—both feminist and socialist. The periodical reported developments in what Zetkin termed the communist women’s movement (die kommunistische Frauenbewegung) and the non-communist women’s movement (die nichtkommunistische Frauenbewegung) but continually emphasized the supremacy of communism in granting women equality with men both in “word and deed” (in Wahrheit und Tat), not only legally, such as in non-communist countries, but also in the workplace and the home, as in Soviet Russia. At that time, according to Zetkin, such equality was only found in Soviet Russia. Zetkin used the KFI to prove to readers that communism fulfilled its promises of easing women’s “dual burden” of caring for the home and children while also maintaining paid employment. Although Zetkin admitted that life in Soviet Russia remained difficult, she nevertheless used the example of the Soviets in the KFI articles to convince women that supporting international communism was the most effective path for obtaining equal economic and social rights with men.
Historical Background
Clara Zetkin, nee Eifiner, was born into a middle-class family on 5 July 1857, in Wiederau, Germany. Here, she often witnessed the poverty of nearby factory workers and their families, which helped establish sympathies within her that would lead to her involvement in the communist movement. As Clara received education and interacted with Russian emigres, she eventually became lovers with Ossip Zetkin, a Russian revolutionary and exile. She adopted his name and with him bore two sons. In this Russian revolutionary milieu she gained the knowledge and skills necessary to become an agitator within the socialist movement. At the turn of the century, Zetkin worked toward female suffrage through her participation in the “Women’s Office” of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. In later years, she went on to propose the creation of International Women’s Day and spoke out against Germany’s involvement in World War I. Her political career included membership in the executive committee of the Comintern and in the central committee of the Communist Party of Germany, as well as being a representative in the German Reichstag from 1920 to 1933. Within these capacities, Zetkin straddled two worlds: that of socialism and that of feminism. As such, she, along with other socialist feminists, argued that women’s rights could only be found within the context of complete social revolution.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, Zetkin advocated the rights of women through social democracy. Women’s rights grew after World War I as Germany’s Weimar Republic, formed in 1919, brought significant changes through its new constitution, which stated that all Germans were equal before the law and that men and women had the same legal rights and privileges. The promises offered to women through the Weimar constitution, however, were never completely fulfilled. Although the law gave women legal equality with men, society could not grant social and civil liberation so easily because practicing such legal equality required extension of political, social, economic, and civil rights to women. Judges and civil servants who had been appointed by the Kaiser before 1914 did not enforce gender equality. In addition, family law, property rights, wages, and working conditions continued to sustain inequality between men and women. For women to be completely equal, German society had to undergo a revolution at many different levels.
During the same time period, the Bolshevik Revolution ushered in an international movement that promised complete legal, economic, and social equality for women. Yet communism only indirectly promised women’s liberation. Its first goal was a revolution that would solve the problems of capitalism, namely workers’ exploitation. After the initial liberation from class antagonisms, party doctrine promised that all men as well as women would be emancipated from bourgeois oppression. This second liberation would be a natural consequence of the economic liberation and could only be granted through communist revolution.
As communist ideas spread after World War I, women supported such organizations as the Communist International (Comintern or Third International), which focused on spreading communism internationally. In Germany, Clara Zetkin and others formed the Spartacist League, which was renamed the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and joined the Comintern in 1919. Because of her close ties with the Bolsheviks, Zetkin looked to Russia as a shining example for communists in Germany. She took seriously the famous words “Proletarier aller Lander, vereinigt euch!” (Workers of all countries, unite!) as she dedicated her talents to the spread of communism by writing and editing hundreds of articles, pamphlets, and speeches. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Zetkin’s efforts to promote solidarity between Germany and Russia became even stronger, and her writings showed her increased allegiance to the Soviet model.
The hopes of Zetkin can be seen in the periodicals for which she was responsible. Over the course of her career, she edited three periodicals: Die Gleichheit (Equality [1890-1925]), Die Kommunistin (The female communist [1919-1926]), and Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale (The communist women’s international [1921-1925]). Each of these periodicals targeted socialist women, but their goals were slightly different. Die Gleichheit affiliated itself with the Social Democratic Party of Germany, a left-wing party established in 1875, and Die Kommunistin was the women’s magazine of the Communist Party of Germany, which established itself in 1919 after breaking away from the Social Democratic Party in the aftermath of World War I. In contrast, Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale, which built a political bridge with the Soviet Union rather than targeting a specific German political group, emphasized an international communist women’s movement through its allegiance to the Third International and the International Women’s Secretariat. The KFI was thus not controlled by a political party as the previous periodicals had been. The goal of Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale was to unite communist women throughout the world in the cause of international revolution. It provided a venue for Zetkin to elucidate her attitudes toward world revolution and allowed communist women an outlet for discussion.
Articles in Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale highlighted the periodical’s commitment to transforming women into working members of a proletarian state and away from the bourgeois (burgerlich) models of women and family. They illustrated what Zetkin believed would appeal to women who felt burdened by the demands of both childcare and employment. Zetkin used examples of Soviet practices to provide women hope for what could be found only through communism rather than through capitalist reforms. Although articles in Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale did not reflect the entire scope of life for women in Soviet Russia, they nevertheless represented Zetkin’s assertion that Soviet Russia granted women equality both in theory and in practice as state intervention eased what political scientist Gail Lapidus and others have termed women’s “double burden” of caring for family while also fulfilling economic and political obligations.
Introduction to Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale
Zetkin’s idea for the KFI came to fruition in 1920. She proposed to her good friend, the leader of the newly created Soviet Russia Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) that: “We ought to form a committee of Communist women from various countries in close and constant contact with our national sections.” A major task of this committee would be “to make contact with the leaders of the organized female workers in each country, the proletarian political women’s movement, bourgeois women’s organizations of every trend and description, and finally the prominent female physicians, teachers, writers, etc., and to form national nonpartisan preparatory committees.” In addition, the committee would meet together in congresses to discuss topics related to women in the workplace and social care of mothers and children.
Later, in a February 1921 letter to her friend and colleague Alexandra Kollontai, founder of the Zhenotdel (Women’s Section of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) and People’s Commissar for Social Welfare, Zetkin extended her idea for a women’s committee by proposing the creation of a new organization and its periodical. Concerned with various agitation efforts throughout Europe, Zetkin sought a method to publish conference proceedings (both women’s conferences and Comintern conferences) to distribute to female comrades. She wanted to mobilize women even further in the communist movement. Thus blossomed the idea for the Communist Women’s International and its monthly newsletter—the KFI. Zetkin told Kollontai that the Communist Women’s International would be an appendage of the Comintern, similar to the Communist Youth International. Such an organization could not wait, though it would exist more on paper than in reality (“mehr auf Papier als in Wirklichkeit”). Thus, the newsletter for the organization would be the primary manifestation of its existence.
Zetkin hoped that the periodical for the Communist Women’s International could be published out of Moscow by the International Communist Women’s Secretariat but knew that transportation difficulties would hinder such a plan. Therefore, Zetkin proposed that she take over the editing and publication of the periodical from Germany. She did so grudgingly, noting that “the work already overwhelms me.” Nevertheless, Zetkin stated that the Communist Women’s International must succeed, and she would commit herself to overcoming the obstacles. She already had access to a sympathetic printer, so printing the KFI would not be a problem.
Zetkin set out criteria for the newsletter of the Communist Women’s International: it must support the Third International both materially and morally, it would be translated into French, English, German, and Russian, and the length of each issue would be approximately nine pages. The publication would include reports, a collection of materials, and theoretical clarification and schooling. A final suggestion for the periodical illustrated Zetkin’s discomfort with its title, Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale, seeing it as too bland. She stated that she could simply not generate a better title, but perhaps Alexandra and her friends in the International Women’s Secretariat in Moscow “were more imaginative.” Apparently they were not.
The typical structure of the KFI included sections that promoted Marxist scholarship, understanding of current events, and enrichment of women’s intellect. The major sections in any given issue of the KFI contained articles, reports, notes on movements within Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, and concluded with a feuilleton section. The KFI even incorporated plays, poetry, and discussion of literature that might be of interest to communist women. Several issues of the KFI included conference proceedings from the Third International as well as proceedings of international women’s conferences such as the Second International Communist Women’s Conference in Moscow in 1921. Popular topics for articles included government programs for mothers and children, issues related to prostitution and health care, concerns about French occupation of the German Ruhr region, agitation efforts, and tributes to Lenin.
Zetkin clarified her view of women’s role in the communist movement in the introduction to the periodical and throughout the journal’s five years of publication. Both the socialist feminist and non-communist women’s movement seemed to play an even larger role in the KFI than did the communist revolution itself. Zetkin stated that both the development of the non-communist proletarian women’s movement (die nichtkommunistische proletarische Frauenbewegung) and the bourgeois women’s movement (die burgerliche Frauenbewegung) fell into the circle of what the KFI hoped to accomplish. Exactly what Zetkin meant by such terms is unclear, though her goal with KFI seemed to encompass a variety of women’s movements. True to this promise, most issues of the KFI included a section discussing the progress of women’s movements outside the communist women’s movement. While Zetkin may have hoped that this would recruit women to communism, the content of the majority of the articles in the KFI assumed readers were already interested in communism in that the periodical incorporated Marxist theory and updates on various communist and women’s movements rather than presenting basic explanations of socialist doctrines.
The KFI aimed at developing solidarity among communist women of the world. It provided updates about what women were doing and presented a newsletter-style approach to making readers aware of the latest trends in socialist feminist movements, or movements that addressed women’s concerns through socialist solutions. During the first couple of years of publication, issues came out regularly. By 1923, issues were sporadic, with only January through July being published. Only a handful of issues came out in 1924, and the four issues produced in 1925 ended with the May/June issue. The July 1924 issue credited “extraordinary circumstances” with a lack of issues in February, April, May, and June and promised that they would appear later. Other than minor shifts in topical emphasis or layout, the content, focus, and style of the KFI remained unchanged. Articles from 1921 could have easily been published in a 1925 issue, and vice versa. A few current events, such as the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 and the anniversary of Lenin’s death in 1925, were the exceptions.
The irregular nature of the periodical indicates that it was not the highest priority for the Communist International and likely depended on Zetkin’s own ability to print new issues. For example, Zetkin visited the Soviet Union three times in 1923. Her time spent away from Germany coincided with the lack of new issues of the KFI being published. The publication run of the periodical also corresponded to Zetkin’s membership in the KPD’s Central Committee. Zetkin was in the Central Committee from December 1920 until June 1925 and then again from March 1927 through June 1929. Perhaps Zetkin’s not being reelected in June 1925 over her disdain for the ultra left-wing faction of the KPD and Comintern discouraged her from supporting the Communist International. When she was reelected in 1927, Zetkin’s physical ailments could have prevented her from once again editing a periodical. These facts, in addition to possible questions of funding and illness, give plausible reasons why Zetkin stopped producing the KFI.
The geographical scope of the articles throughout KFI’s publication affirms Zetkin’s international emphasis. Although clearly Soviet Russia maintained a place of primary significance in the periodical’s content, countries throughout the world received updates. For instance, each year, a spring issue of the KFI included country-based reports on how women throughout the world celebrated International Women’s Day. In 1921, articles from several European countries appeared. These included updates and stories from Czechoslovakia, Holland, England, Italy, and France. The only non-European article, though brief, focused on New South Wales. Zetkin demonstrated in the KFI that the communist women’s movement had permeated the globe by the 1920s.
Despite Zetkin’s desire to publish the newsletter in multiple languages, it ended up only being printed in German. The circulation of the periodical is unclear. Although it can be found in both print and microfilm at several different archives and libraries in Europe and the United States, there is no indication as to the geographical or numerical statistics of its circulation. Further research would help determine the practical impact of this periodical. Initial analysis of the KFI, however, indicates Zetkin’s commitment to the international communist women’s movement and allegiance to the Soviet model for aiding women in the 1920s.
International Women’s Day in the KFI
A key feature of the KFI, and proof of Zetkin’s dedication to progressing the women’s movement internationally, were yearly reports about how women in various countries (mostly Europe) celebrated International Women’s Day. The holiday, first proposed by Zetkin in 1910 and often called International Communist Women’s Day by her, initially promoted the extension of voting rights to women but expanded to address women’s interests in general. In Soviet Russia, International Women’s Day demonstrations on 23 February 1917 (following the Julian calendar, Russia was thirteen days behind the Western calendar), prompted the February Revolution and the toppling of the tsar. The failure by the Provisional Government to quell the turmoil of war and revolution created the conditions for Lenin to lead the Bolsheviks to power in October 1917. Thus, for both Zetkin and Soviet women, coverage of International Women’s Day was particularly significant. These accounts remained standard throughout the KFI’s years of publication. Because the first issues of the KFI appeared in April 1921, it is understandable that one of this issue’s first articles discussed the recent Internationale kommunistische Frauentag, or International Communist Women’s Day. According to the article, celebration of Women’s Day began in Moscow, with communist women in Germany, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere in Europe participating within their own countries.
This article utilized the holiday to commemorate Soviet victory. It focused on the International Women’s Day celebration in Russia, noting that it was on 8 March 1917 when the Russian Revolution against the tsar began. Furthermore, women in Soviet Russia had achieved full economic, political, and social equality with men by 1921 (“In Sowjet-Rufiland ist die Frau wirtschaftlich, politisch, sozial dem Manne vollstandig gleichberechtigt”). Despite this bold statement, however, the article explained that women in Soviet Russia were still bound by household responsibilities, which the government was currently working to alleviate. The call, then, on International Women’s Day 1921 in Russia was to open childcare facilities, communal kitchens, and recreational facilities for working women. The article concluded, “Soon, International Women’s Day for Russian Comrades will signify willingness to emancipate women through working together in all spheres, both economic and cultural.”
This goal continued in the May/June 1921 issue of the KFI, which again reported Russia’s celebration of International Communist Women’s Day and clarified some of the statements made in the April article. The unnamed author called again for means to relieve women from the “slavery of housework” (Sklaverei der Hauswirthschaft). In honor of this day, the Soviet regime declared a half-day holiday. This allowed women both in cities and villages to celebrate the occasion, and women in Moscow presented a message to “Female Workers in all Lands from Your Sisters, the Female Proletariat of Moscow.” This statement recognized that Russia needed to improve its economy but argued that world capitalism hindered its progress. Consequently, it was up to women in all lands to join together against the common enemy of capitalism. How? “Only communism can rescue us.” The messengers of this statement concluded furthermore that, despite the difficult circumstances currently facing Russia’s female proletariat, they still lived under better conditions than their “sisters in bourgeois countries.” This conclusion that Russia, regardless of its poverty or conditions during the civil war, aided women better than did capitalist countries remained a consistent theme through the KFI’s publication.
The 1922 report of International Women’s Day in Soviet Russia presented more details than the previous year’s report concerning the specific activities celebrators engaged in on that day. Women of all backgrounds—proletariat, employed, housewives, peasant, and even “bourgeois women” — commemorated the occasion. In Moscow, the celebrations began on 5 March and continued through 8 March. Women gathered in theaters and clubhouses listening to speakers, including Zetkin, until late in the night. Many also gathered in the Moscow (Bolshoi) Theatre, which waived part of the fee to use the facility. Rather than producing advertisements and posters announcing this big event, the money that was thereby saved was given to aid the hungry.
In 1923, the female proletariat of Russia again used International Women’s Day as an opportunity to garner support from women throughout the world. In “Aufruf der russischen Genossinnen zum Internationalen Frauentag an die Proletarierinnen aller Lander” (Call of Russian female comrades on International Women’s Day to the female proletariat of the world), the authors (“The Communist Women of Soviet- Russia”) reminded their readers of the horrors facing Europe due to recent war, current famine and children’s starvation, and the control of capitalism over the workers. The women asserted that, after years of struggle, the female proletariat of Russia was now in a position to focus on peaceful development in their own country. Their victory, however, would remain stunted so long as “rapacious capitalism sits with its claws on the throats of the working class in the West.” International Women’s Day equaled a call to international solidarity and expansion of communist revolution. It was not just about women but rather about emancipating them through the overthrow of capitalism. As women listened to the call of their Soviet sisters and comrades, and looked to the example of Soviet Russia, they witnessed how the aims of International Communist Women’s Day had been applied.
The Soviet Solution in the KFI
The goals stated at the International Women’s Day gatherings in Soviet Russia identified aspects of communism Zetkin believed brought practical emancipation for women. For Zetkin, the equality granted in capitalist countries was inferior to that given to Soviet women because it was only in Soviet Russia that such equality was actually practiced. Thus, most KFI articles about women in the Soviet Union aimed at proving that life for Soviet women was much better than life for women in capitalist nations such as England, France, and Germany. By comparing the Soviet Union to capitalist countries, articles in the KFI emphasized that women in the Soviet Union were equal to men both in theory and in practice. Zetkin viewed Soviet women’s practical equality as a direct result of communist revolution and the Soviet regime’s attempts to grant complete liberation to women (“die vollstandige Befreiung der Frau”).
Comparisons with Capitalist Countries
According to articles in the KFI, women in the Soviet Union were in a much better legal and social position than women in capitalist countries. Democratic nations had experienced revolutions just after World War I, but they lacked the completeness of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. One of the tenets of socialist feminism maintained that freedom and equality for women would come only through a communist revolution. To rationalize the validity of this argument, Zetkin authored the article “Die beiden November revolutionen und die Frauen” (The two November revolutions and women) in the November/December 1921 issue of the KFI. The article looked at two November revolutions: the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the 1918 German revolution that created the Weimar Republic. Zetkin demonstrated to her readers that, even though the Weimar Republic stated in its constitution to have granted women complete legal equality, it was only in Russia that women actually lived in an equal, liberated society.
In both Germany and Russia, the revolutions provided a great deal of hope for women. Feminists wanted legal equality, equal opportunity in the workplace, and help with mothering duties. Zetkin discussed the lot of women in Russia since the Bolshevik Revolution. They had political equality with men, the same work responsibilities as men from the age of sixteen on, enjoyed an eight-hour workday, and had access to all occupations. In addition, women received equal pay for equal work. Mothers in Russia also received aid with time off before and after the birth of a child and access to special homes and nurseries for mothers and children. Zetkin’s description of post-revolutionary Russia portrayed a socialist feminist paradise that likely ignored the realities of recent war and famine. In this socialist utopia, neither work nor family placed a burden on women as communism provided practical equality between men and women.
Zetkin also recognized that working women were distressed over the fact that they often made less than men. Zetkin noticed that this was typically because women often did not have a similar set of skills as men, but women who did possess advanced skills were able to obtain positions of responsibility. To combat this discrepancy in skill level, the Soviet government created training courses for working women and female peasants. In addition, children, who began working at age sixteen, attended vocational schools. Zetkin noted that since 1917, more than 80,000 vocational schools had been established, compared to a total of only 55,000 schools existing in 1911. Because of the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917, men and women in the Soviet Union had equal access to education and job training. Through government assistance, women became equals with men in all regards—not just through the written law.
Zetkin contrasted the mighty achievements of the Bolshevik Revolution with the unfulfilled promises of the German Revolution of 1918, which ushered in the Weimar Republic. Despite the legal equality between men and women, the number of female Parliament members in Germany was small. Equal work for equal pay in Germany rarely occurred, and the eight-hour workday existed still only on paper rather than being a reality. In contrast to the benefits accorded to Russian mothers, German women received little aid for mothers. In summary, the German November Revolution of 1918 did not give women equal standing as men either in the law or in practice. The equality between men and women as outlined in the Weimar Constitution was meaningless because such equality was not reinforced. Neither government nor society supported women’s involvement in politics, work training, or challenges in motherhood.
Why, Zetkin asked, did the Weimar Constitution not uphold its promise that men and women were equal? Her answer was that the German November Revolution failed the women because it failed the proletariat. In Germany, the dukes of industry and banking kings (die Industrieherzoge und Bankkonige) were the rulers of the empire. Thus, capitalism controlled Germany and thereby prohibited women from becoming men’s equals. Only in Russia, where the proletariat governed the country, could women be equal with men. Zetkin’s analysis of the two November revolutions supported the socialist feminist stance that women’s liberation came only through the liberation of the working class. Zetkin supported specific recognition of and attention to women’s needs, not by a separate women’s movement but as a byproduct of communism’s restructuring of society. Accordingly, only Soviet Russia liberated women from inequality in the workplace and the burdens of motherhood because it was the only country that had supported a communist revolution.
Easing the Dual Burden
Zetkin and other communist sympathizers sought not only social and political equality but also to lighten women’s burdens of balancing motherhood with employment. Zetkin herself mothered two sons, and communists in general emphasized the necessity of bearing children and raising them to be loyal communist workers. A major purpose of motherhood in communism was, thus, to build up a communist state. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Alexandra Kollontai was appointed director of the Women’s Section of the Central Committee (Zhenotdel) and as such was one of the greatest supporters of state involvement in family life and a change to the traditional family structure. In “Communism and the Family” (1920), she stated, “Communist society has this to say to the working woman and working man: ‘You are young, you love each other. Everyone has the right to happiness. Therefore live your life. Do not flee happiness. Do not fear marriage, even though under capitalism marriage was truly a chain of sorrow. Do not be afraid of having children. Society needs more workers and rejoices at the birth of every child. You do not have to worry about the future of your child; your child will know neither hunger nor cold.'” Thus, communism supported parenthood but aimed to relieve the burdens found within it.
Also in “Communism and the Family,” Kollontai argued that capitalism had destroyed the family and women’s place within it because women were either forced, or as a means of economic liberation, entered factories while still taking care of home and children. Family life became oppressive to women, who could only be liberated from “domestic slavery” through communism. As the communist state took responsibility for raising children, parenthood passed to the collective from the individual. Society would feed, educate, and care for not the mother’s children but “our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.” According to Barbara Clements, historian of Soviet women, the development of daycare centers and public dining halls, and the building of socialism neighborhood by neighborhood confirmed the revolution for women. Articles in the KFI supported Kollontai’s vision of state responsibility in aiding mothers and of a “neighborhood by neighborhood” approach to revolution.
In the first issue of KFI, Zetkin included an article titled “Wie Sowjet-Rufiland die Mutterschaft und das Kind schutzt” (How Soviet Russia protects motherhood and children). This article used the successes of Soviet Russia to demonstrate communism’s ability to protect women and children. The author, Nikolai Semaschko, discussed the depressing circumstances for women and children before the Bolshevik Revolution, noting Russia’s earlier high infant mortality. He painted a bleak picture of women and children who were not looked after and contrasted this to the salvation brought to mothers and children because of the new Soviet government. Semaschko concluded that, under the new Soviet regime, the law forbade women from working eight weeks before and eight weeks after delivering a child, all the while receiving full pay. In addition, pregnant women received special privileges such as free transportation on trams and trains as well as food and clothing for themselves and their newborns. The author then described the medical and educational facilities established to protect and nurture children. He claimed that even in many villages, not just Petrograd and Moscow, mothers and children were provided for. Children were taken care of at school, given warm meals, and even the deaf and blind received schooling.
Readers of this article may have wondered how such programs could be instituted so quickly in a country that had just come out of a civil war immediately following a revolution. The author recognized this and ended the article with a promise that the things he mentioned would in fact be established on a larger, more complete scale after the country recovered from the civil war. Once Soviet Russia healed, it would become the leader in the area of cultural life and nurturing mother and child. According to Semaschko, the Soviet Union had quickly and efficiently instituted programs to transfer the work of mothers to the state. The state had room for improvement, but that was minor compared to what had already been accomplished.
Throughout the publication run of the KFI, Zetkin included articles similar to those written by Semaschko in 1921, thus indicating little evolution in the nature of the periodical’s content. In the February 1925 issue of the KFI, she incorporated two articles concerning women’s roles as wives and mothers. “Gesellschaftliche Fursorge fur Mutter und Kind in der Sowjetunion” (Social welfare for mother and child in the
Soviet Union) by Dr. Wera Lebedew reaffirmed the importance of caring for mothers and children, as a “duty of the state,” in order to develop society as a whole. The responsibility of parenthood did not fall upon mothers and fathers. Lebedew’s article identified the role of the government in supporting mothers by taking care of them and their children.
Lebedew clarified why it was so important to nurture mothers and children—they had other duties to perform as workers. She said that the government created mechanisms that relieved the burdens of motherhood because it understood that this was how women would be a productive, successful power in the social economy. Therefore, the Soviets created government organizations for the purpose of lightening the burdens of motherhood because they wanted women to focus on being workers of the collective rather than members of a family. Lebedew emphasized the relationship between motherhood and productive employment, knowing that this dual burden was heavy for women. Because Lebedew wrote this article in 1925, she presented clearer statistics and more confidence in Soviet programs than Semaschko had done in 1921. For instance, Lebedew listed the specific establishments to help mothers and children: infant care, toddler care, offices to help pregnant women and those with diseases, and departments for the education and health of women and children. In the Soviet Union (including Ukraine, Belorussia, and Transcaucasia), 1,340 different establishments had been erected to aid mothers and children.
Lebedew noted that the future would bring continued progress; she also claimed that in only six years, despite the civil war and economic difficulties, the Soviets established numerous programs for mothers and children. The author, therefore, implied that social welfare institutions could be constructed in a short period of time. This expectation might have provided hope for the KFI’s readers, who looked to the Soviet example for how government intervention could provide emancipation for women striving to balance home and work responsibilities. Early Bolshevik women could have found hope in Soviet successes for mothers and children as this was the first step in liberating women from capitalism. By providing examples of government care for the needs of mothers, Zetkin presented evidence that communism aided mothers by using practical measures not implemented in capitalist countries.
Assessing Soviet Realities
Zetkin’s argument that the Bolshevik Revolution liberated women rested on the fact that equality was not just written but actually practiced. Marxist theory, according to Friedrich Engels’s The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, argued that the family was an economic institution and therefore oppressive. In his 1920 interview with Zetkin, Lenin said, “The decay, putrescence, and filth of bourgeois marriage with its difficult dissolution, its license for the husband and bondage for the wife, and its disgustingly false sex morality and relations fill the best and most spiritually active of people with the utmost loathing.” Lenin promoted the idea among communists that bourgeois marriage was oppressive, giving men freedom to rule their wives and commit adultery. Wives in such a situation became property of men, enslaved to them. Communism sought to revolutionize family structure, and Zetkin supported these changes.
The historian Wendy Goldman argues, however, that Soviet promises of complete equality in family life may have presented a highly optimistic view of Soviet law. Some communists saw de facto marriage as the way of the future and an opportunity for women’s emancipation; however, Goldman notes that others saw it as a sign of chaos, disruption, and a war-ravaged society. She cites a 1924 article by Ivan Stepanov, who stated, “Women remained chained to the ruined family hearth, and men, whistling gaily, walk out leaving women with the children.” Stepanov’s interpretation provided early criticism of the rose-colored analyses offered by other communists. Such a view was rarely seen in the KFI articles.
The historian Anne Gorsuch agrees with Goldman in her skepticism about equality between men and women in Russia in the 1920s and addresses the reality of women’s equality in practice. She looks at numbers of women, and the reception of young women, in the Komsomol (youth division of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Gorsuch uses this research to show that family life in Soviet Russia differed very little from that in other capitalist nations. Even after the Bolshevik Revolution, Gorsuch argues, many Russian men viewed women as backward, the antithesis of revolutionary ideals. Parents even forbade their daughters from joining the Komsomol because “they did not see any reason why a girl should learn politics or participate in social work when her principal task was to learn how to care for the household and to raise children.” While women such as Zetkin and Kollontai encouraged women to be politically active and to develop themselves as workers, family and associates perhaps told these same women that they had no place in political activities. It seemed that women’s ability to participate in strengthening the revolution depended largely on personal circumstances.
The practical equality portrayed in the KFI also did not correspond to the reality of traditional culture in Russia. Articles in the KFI presented a theoretical rather than a practical reality of family law in the Soviet Union. Although Zetkin emphasized the equality of men and women in practice rather than just in legal writ, Soviet family codes, such as that of 1918, did not lead to overnight changes in cultural attitudes toward women. As Goldman and Gorsuch show, the communist revolution could not immediately change women’s position in the eyes of men or their traditional views of themselves. Thus the legal equality in Soviet Russia as portrayed in the KFI reflected the optimism of Zetkin and other Bolsheviks, whose own dedication and theoretical approach to communism motivated them to emphasize positive accomplishments while downplaying the reality of communism’s practical application.
Despite the many expressions of hope and progress illustrated by a number of contributors to the KFI, other authors exemplified unawareness of the actual situation in the Soviet Union not just in terms of family law but also in relieving women from their double burden. As Zetkin emphasized the Soviet Union’s successes in helping women and children, she either neglected or preferred not to discuss the harsh realities of a struggling government and economy. Although the Soviet Union had reformed marriage laws by granting equal rights to husbands and wives, it had also made family life more difficult for women. Goldman argues, “high unemployment, low wages, and lack of daycare not only reinforced women’s dependence on the family, they created a sharp contradiction between the harsh reality of life and a legal vision of freedom long promulgated by reformers and socialists.” She supports this argument by showing that the number of children cared for in state institutions dropped by about 25,000 between 1923 and 1925. In addition, the institutions lacked adequate amounts of shoes, linens, and clothing. Because the state did not have the means to care for children adequately, the government often encouraged families to raise their own children. It was more feasible to give parents stipends to care for their children rather than having children put in state custody. Thus, while some women viewed Soviet reforms as an opportunity to provide liberation, such developments aggravated already difficult situations because the reforms were not complete. As German readers of the KFI rejoiced in the promises communism could bring them, their Russian counterparts experienced a much different reality from that portrayed in Zetkin’s work.
Zetkin could not have been completely oblivious to the situation in Soviet Russia because she had traveled there many times. In addition, some articles in the KFI admitted the country’s poor economic situation and its consequences. “Konferenz der Leiter der Provinz und Gouvernementsfrauenabteilungen Sowjetrufilands” (Conference for the leaders of provincial and governmental women’s departments in Soviet Russia) in the November/December 1922 issue of the KFI clarified the importance of aiding mothers. The article, which reported on a December 21 meeting in Moscow that included all leaders of the provincial women’s departments as well as a portion of government leaders from the smaller regional women’s department, stated that these leaders were in agreement that the best way to strengthen society’s work was through establishing nurseries, daycare centers, dining halls, laundries, and other facilities to move housework and childcare away from mothers and into the hands of the state. The article noted, however, that the financial circumstances of the state were not yet ready for such responsibilities. Because of that, it was up to offices and factories to establish their own facilities. As places of employment could not set up such establishments, the Soviet promise of granting total emancipation for women through easing their home and family responsibilities remained unfulfilled.
Along with Zetkin’s own enthusiasm for the Soviet model, Lenin recognized that the Soviet Union had not fully accomplished its goals in relation to women but was already on the right track. He said:
We know perfectly well that all this is still too little, considering the needs of the working women, and that it is still far from sufficient for their real emancipation. Yet it is an immense stride forward from what there was in tsarist and capitalist Russia. … It is a good start in the right direction, and we shall continue to develop it consistently, and with all available energy, too. You abroad may rest assured.
Lenin’s determination mirrored that of Zetkin. Many contributors to the KFI praised the Soviet Union’s successes but recognized room for improvement. They were filled with hope that the future, as expressed each International Women’s Day, would finally provide practical social and economic equality for women and help ease the burdens of motherhood and employment.
Conclusion
Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale highlighted Zetkin’s interest in international women’s movements and emphasized the example of the Soviet Union, particularly Soviet Russia, in convincing women of the virtues of communism. By writing and including articles about the advances for Soviet women, Zetkin argued that true emancipation came only through communism. Whereas other women’s movements focused on acquiring legal equality, in her view such liberation remained theoretical. As the Soviet Union in the 1920s gave women complete legal equality, it also changed the nature of the family and attempted to ease women’s dual burden of motherhood and employment. Zetkin thus used articles in the KFI to prove that communism gave practical emancipation to women. Die Kommunistische Fraueninternationale was a political tool that exemplified Zetkin’s commitment to women’s issues as well as international communist solidarity.
Although Zetkin must have known how difficult life was for Soviet women, she never publicly showed any sense of disappointment. True to her convictions, she fought on for the cause of communism even when the realities in Soviet Russia conflicted with promises of full emancipation for women. It seems plausible that Zetkin’s strategy for dealing with the problems in the Soviet Union was conveying an unwavering optimism. If she dedicated herself to spreading communism among women throughout the world, the accomplishments she discussed in the KFI would eventually become as real as her articles made them seem.
Political philosopher Jonathan Wolff insightfully noted: “In celebrating the end of the ‘evil empire’ [the Soviet Union] we forgot that the thinkers who inspired Eastern European communism were not evil people. On the contrary, they saw themselves as our saviours.” Through the KFI, Zetkin hoped to become a savior to women as she presented a portrait of a good life under communism and encouraged them to join the Soviet Union in communist revolution. Using the Soviet model, Zetkin aimed to convince her readers that communism was the only means possible for liberating women from household drudgery and social inequality—the goal set forward each 8 March.