“Sexism is once again being declared a secondary contradiction”
Konkret: Your new book is called Back to the Roots.
Roswitha Scholz: As the subtitle suggests, the title refers to the regression in Marxist-feminist theory formation, or rather in left-wing theory formation as a whole, since this often forms the basis for feminist theories. And here we can observe a return to the old Marxism of the labor movement with class struggle and labor ontology, and to the hard-working and willing average citizen. There is an attempt to explain sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Gypsyism, homophobia, and transphobia simply in terms of class conflict. That, in a nutshell, is my criticism of current left-wing theory.
How did this regression come about?
This is taking place against the backdrop of general regression in global society—the shift to the right, the turn to nationalism, the nationalization of capital through tariffs, and so on, which are responses to the failure of globalization, even though it is clear that this will not work and will only exacerbate the crisis. The left’s return to class struggle Marxism and the ontology of labor must also be seen against this backdrop. It is a reflex response to these crisis-ridden social conditions and the left-wing counterpart to right-wing regression.
So what is the problem with the concept of class?
The problem with the concept of class is that it no longer applies today. The concept of class as found in Marx’s work can no longer accurately describe current conditions, because society has evolved from an industrial society to a service society with a broad middle class. The central cause of the regression lies here: in the middle classes’ fear of social decline. In this context, Marx speaks of a dynamic contradiction: as productive forces develop, more and more jobs are being rationalized away, while production output is increased. The key point here is that abstract labor is not something ontological, but rather a historical product of capitalism and patriarchy that must be questioned. Therefore, workers can no longer be the ones to whom one simply appeals.
Were they ever?
That’s precisely the joke. As we know, the proletariat also veered toward fascism, as early as the 1930s. Marx’s entire concept of class in and of itself has been thoroughly discredited. And it continues to be discredited today. One could refer back to the Frankfurt School, where Dialectic of Enlightenment states that in the course of self-preservation, humans become amphibians. In other words, they become stimulus-response beings who no longer question their existence and instead just conform to their circumstances.
And what is the problem with Marxist-feminist analysis?
Take, for example, Lise Vogel’s Social Reproduction Theory. The book was published back in 1983, but is currently the subject of heated debate. Vogel takes Marx as he is – that is, the class struggle Marx, not my fetish Marx – and then simply paints the sphere of reproduction in feminist colors. What she does not do is to conceive of women as the other, as active participants in an undervalued sphere of reproduction. For me, this other encompasses the socio-psychological aspect: that is, the split within the male subject, which designates female characteristics as inferior, and the fact that this can also be demonstrated in scientific, theological, and philosophical discourses. Furthermore, value-dissociation is a process. In the past, there was a polarization of gender characteristics: men were rational with a strong superego, and women were emotional and sensual, and so on. But that has not remained the case. Since the 1970s, more and more women have been entering the workforce and the level of education has risen. Today, more women than men graduate from high school. They are no longer considered just housewives, but, as Regina Becker-Schmidt says, are doubly socialized. Nevertheless, women still have a lower status than men.
In your book, you write that social regression has been evident in mainstream society for decades, but has accelerated in recent years. When was that? With the crisis of globalization in 2007 and 2008?
Wilhelm Heitmeyer described this regression back in the 1980s, when the Republicans were winning elections. And the “individualization” described by Ulrich Beck, which began during this period, led to great uncertainty and the conservative shift of the Kohl years. After “reunification,” there were the events in Rostock, Mölln, and Solingen. But it really took off in 2007 and 2008 with the financial crash. This was followed by the euro crisis, the Greek crisis, and, in the mid-2010s, the refugee movements. The result is figures like Trump and the rise of right-wing parties throughout Europe. To my knowledge, only two people on the left foresaw the financial crash: the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, based on his world-systems analysis, and Robert Kurz with his crisis theory. Before that, he was ridiculed for it. They called him collapse Kurz.
Why is left-wing theory formation regressing in the crisis of capitalism? Shouldn’t the opposite actually be the case?
Over the past 30 years, especially after 2008, many Marx reading circles formed. There was a new philosophical reading of Marx, and anthology after anthology was published. But that was a relatively short-lived trend, and with the rise of the right, the left has reverted to this class struggle Marxism and, to a not inconsiderable extent, to vulgar Marxism, because what applies to society as a whole also applies to the left, namely that in times of crisis, people orient themselves toward old certainties or stupidities.
Does left-wing regression also mean believing that one no longer needs to be concerned about sexism, racism, etc.?
The juxtaposition of class and identity politics resonates with anti-woke sentiment. This is embodied, for example, by the BSW. Another example is the attempt by “Z,” the magazine for Marxist renewal, to explain and solve the problem of intersectionality through class struggle. This isn’t necessarily crude sexism on display, but racism, sexism, and so on are once again declared to be secondary contradictions. The sexism isn’t direct, but it is already an inherently sexist line of argumentation. Of course, it must also be said that identity politics is also open to criticism. It is not entirely innocent, but has itself become authoritarian. I wrote a decidedly anti-antiziganist text in which the word “gypsy” appeared frequently. And then, at an event, someone actually counted how often I used this term. Like an old grammar school teacher who constantly marks spelling mistakes in the margins. Totally formalistic. In a text about anti-Gypsyism, the negative connotation commonly used in the dominant society must also appear. Critiques of language only makes sense if they take context and intention into account.
Roswitha Scholz: Back to the Roots. Zur Regression marxistisch-feministischer Theoriebildung heute. Texte aus 30 Jahren. Zu-Klampen-Verlag, Springe 2025, 334 pages, 32 euros.
Originally published in Konkret No. 11 (2025)
EXIT! in English 