The only English translation I know is “Reminiscences of Lenin”, New York: International Publishers, 1934. It follows the German text very closely but omits the quotation you are asking about. (In the hardcopy edition, see pp. 25-26.)

In the German text that I referenced, see pp. 39-40. I can scan that for you if you wish.

Thanks for bringing this anomaly to my attention. I edited the footnote accordingly.

Thanks for writing this concise piece. I read you material regularly.

A group of us read this article with great interest last weekend. I searched in vain to find the quote attributed to Lenin by Zetkin. I could not find it in the English translation on the MIA or Google books, however I could not locate the 1985 Deitz Verlag edition online.

Would it be possible to direct me to it?

Thanks,

Adam

However, I felt that the concluding part of your piece ignored Zetkin’s important contribution to debate on socialism and feminism. You quote her as saying ‘for working women to join together with capitalist feminism weakens the struggle of the proletariat’, but say she only used this word to describe the bourgeois wing of the movement. Her term Frauenrechtlerinnen wasn’t just applied to bourgeois feminists, however; she engaged in polemics with a wide range of what today would be called feminists, and was extremely critical of any strategy which ignored the question of class and which claimed there was a common interest of women across all classes.

That is why she wrote ‘What the Women Owe to Karl Marx’ in Die Gleichheit in 1903 to mark the 20th anniversary of his death, when she described historical materialism as bursting ‘like so many scintillating soap bubbles’ the idea of sisterhood between women of all classes. Or, a few years later, ‘Therefore, our Socialist women oppose strongly the bourgeois women righters’ credo that the women of all classes must gather into an unpolitical, neutral movement striving exclusively for women’s rights. In theory and practice they maintain the conviction that the class antagonisms are much more powerful, effective and decisive than the social antagonisms between the sexes, and that thus the working-class women will never win their full emancipation in a struggle of all women without difference of class against the social monopolies of the male sex, but only in the class-war of all the exploited, without difference of sex, against all who exploit, without difference of sex. That does not mean at all that they undervalue the importance of the political emancipation of the female sex. On the contrary, they employ much more energy than the German women-righters to conquer the suffrage. But the vote is, according to their views, not the last word and term of their aspirations, but only a weapon—a means in struggle for a revolutionary aim—the Socialistic order.’
Clara Zetkin, Justice, 9th October 1909, p. 7.

The term feminist has very different connotations today, and many feminists are opposed to many aspects of capitalism and some to capitalism per se. It would be wrong both theoretically and practically for socialists to create barriers to working with feminists, or to pretend that they somehow have the interests of the bourgeoisie at heart, or to say that we can’t learn from them. There is no doubt that 1960s feminism put major issues on the political agenda which have still not been resolved and with which socialists and feminists still grapple.

But there are many different feminisms. Can we deny that bourgeois feminism still exists, and that its spokeswomen have been, as Hester Eisenstein says, seduced by capitalism and imperialism, and that it is bitterly opposed to socialism and genuine women’s liberation? What about the women who talk about glass ceilings but ignore their sisters (and brothers) who are seeing the floor give way beneath them? There are plenty of women in finance, media, the legal system and politics whose commitment to feminism is about more people like them in high places. Isn’t the relationship between class and oppression is central, even if we don’t always agree on definitions or solutions? I agree that when Zetkin says that there is ‘no special women’s question’ she isn’t denying oppression but she surely is saying that the fate of women’s liberation is inextricably linked with that of socialism.

Thanks for your response, Peter. You suggest that we pay more attention to the ideas of Pannekoek, Gorter, and the Left Communists. These are familiar issues, but you will be glad to know that their views are presented cogently and at great length — and responded to — in the course of the Third Congress itself, whose proceedings I am publishing later this year. Perhaps you will review the book?

I am not sure what you are referring to regarding Claude McKay. I assume you mean his participation in the Fourth Congress in 1922. This is documented in my book on the congress, Toward the United Front. If that is the case, could you explain your point with reference to the record?

“J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI went after Martin Luther King, tried to discredit him – indeed, even sent him a note suggesting that because of his activities with other women besides his wife, he now had no option but to commit suicide.” (John Raines, co-burglar of Philly FBI office that revealed COINTELPRO – just over halfway down the transcript)
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/8/it_was_time_to_do_more

As the wit has it, you couldn’t make it up.

Another pair of remarks:

Kun championed a disastrous ultra-leftism at the time, but didn’t simply survive politically he flourished, remaining at the top of the Comintern for almost 20 years, even as it twisted & turned.

“The problem was, J. Edgar Hoover was untouchable.” (John Raines)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bela-kun–outlawsdiary00tormuoft.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zetkin_luxemburg1910.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rebozo_Hoover_Nixon.jpg