Donate to Links


Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box

GLW Radio on 3CR



Recent comments



Syndicate

Syndicate content

A Marxist’s place is in the feminist movement

[See also "Why socialists need feminism". For more discussion of feminism, click HERE.]

By Karen Fletcher

August 6, 2013 – Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- Tony Cliff was characteristically blunt when he set out what was to become the International Socialist Tendency’s (IST) position on “the feminist movement” in his 1984 book, Class Struggle and Women's Liberation:

Two different movements have sought to achieve women’s liberation over the past hundred or more years, Marxism and feminism. Both wish to eradicate women’s unequal and oppressed position in present-day society, and to replace it with the full and genuine equality of men and women. However, they explain women’s oppression in very different ways, and pursue strategies which are quite opposed to one another.

Feminism sees the basic division in the world as that between men and women. The cause of women’s oppression is men’s urge to dominate and control them. History is the story of the unchanging patriarchal structures through which men have subjugated women. The only way to abolish these structures is for women, of whatever social class, to unite against men, of whatever class.

For Marxism, however, the fundamental antagonism in society is that between classes, not sexes. For thousands of years a minority of men and women have co-operated to live off the labour of the overwhelming majority of working men and women. The class struggle between exploiter and exploited, whatever their sex, is the driving force of historical change. Women’s oppression can only be understood in the context of the wider relations of class exploitation.

There can be no compromise between these two views… (from the introduction)

Sharon Smith’s and Abbie Bakan’s speeches to the US ISO’s Socialism 2012 and 2013 conferences, in which they identify as Marxist feminists and challenge long-held IST orthodoxy, have been a cause for great celebration among we Marxist feminists whose existence was obliterated by Cliff’s formulation.

Here in Australia Sharon and Abbie’s revelations have been fortuitously timed. The country’s two largest revolutionary socialist parties Socialist Alliance (ex-Fourth International) and Socialist Aternative (ex-IST) are in serious unity discussions and an important point of contention is how a united revolutionary socialist party should orient to the feminist movement.

There is a lot more to come out about the reasons for Cliff’s audacious theoretical invention and its longevity in the IST tradition, against all evidence. Abbie Bakan promised in her Marxism 2013 talk that she would publish some internal debates and there will be a great deal to learn from these. I suspect, though, that the primary reason for Cliff’s “intervention”, and intransigence on it, is already clear. It was a product of the 1980s and the resurgence of feminism, especially on universities. Cliff feared that feminism, like other social movements, would be a “bridge out of the party”, luring young women away from class analysis and into radical- or liberal-feminist politics.

My experience was the opposite. In 1984 I was already a passionate, although theoretically ignorant, feminist and I signed up for gender studies and the University of Queensland student union’s “Women’s Rights Collective” on my first day at uni. I inhaled the WRC’s rad-fem library of Kate Millett, Shulamith Firestone, Mary Daly and others, and found their utopian visions stirring but their strategies sadly fantastical. I sat through an excruciating semester of dry, Euro-communist, proto post-modern gender studies and fell asleep in most classes.

Eventually it was a little introductory pamphlet, Patriarchy or Class by Rose McCann (Resistance Books), that led me to Marxist feminism – Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Clara Zetkin, Alexandra Kollontai, Rosa Luxemburg and Marxist feminists of the second wave, mainly US Socialist Workers Party (SWP) activists like Mary Alice Waters and Evelyn Reed -- and a strategy for women’s liberation that I thought then, and still think today, is the one that can win.

McCann’s pamphlet, like Cliff’s book, was a party-building tool designed to differentiate the then Australian SWP, and its youth organisation Resistance, from the rad-fems on campus. It summarised and debunked some of the most popular rad-fem treatises, explained capitalism’s attempts to neutralise feminism with liberal and bourgeois variants and, crucially, explained the self-reinforcing links between radical and liberal feminism.

Today that pamphlet is out of print, and I don’t advocate a reprint. It too was a product of its time and it used the word “patriarchy” in a very different way than it is used by feminist activists today. Perhaps we should make it available on the net for historical interest though. I gather from a number of sources that ISO/Socialist Alternative/Solidarity comrades were under the impression, for decades, that the Australian SWP/Democratic Socialist Party/Socialist Alliance had “no class analysis” of women’s oppression. This misunderstanding should be cleared up.

In the late 1990s Resistance produced a T-shirt with the slogan, “I’ll be a post-feminist in a post-patriarchy”, a way to proudly wear your opposition to post-modernism. By the ‘90s the early Euro-communist droning had developed into a full-blown post-modernist onslaught on campus, atomising activism into a squabbling cesspool of individual “identities”. Resistance and the DSP sided with the part of the feminist movement that agreed that there is, in fact, a “grand narrative” of systemic sexism. In the process perhaps we did blur the distinction between materialist and idealist theories about sexism’s root cause, but we were on a war footing. Post-modernism was decimating feminism.

The post-modernist onslaught has thankfully subsided, theorised up its own fundament and into oblivion. (As an aside, I notice one of its strongest student activist proponents in Melbourne, Patricia Karvelas, is today the Victorian editor and bureau chief of Rupert murdoch’s The Australian, self-proclaimed organ of Australian big business) and there is renewed interest in “materialist” feminism – a formulation that seeks to get around the academic career-limiting word “Marxist”. It seem to me that this is a good time for Marxist feminists to put our case in the broader feminist movement.

Discussions between Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative in Australia on our different orientations to feminism have not progressed far yet. It’s a difficult discussion but I think it Sharon Smith’s and Abbie Bakan’s work can advance things, if Socialist Alternative is willing to engage with it openly.

To date Socialist Alternative  has downplayed it as “semantics” and emphasised its strong record campaigning for reproductive rights, child care and equal pay (although not the issues Cliff classified as “issues where women are individual victims of male oppression – rape, violence, pornography” (from the Conclusion to chapter 11 of Class Struggle and Women’s Liberation).

It is true that “feminism” has signified many different things to different people at different times, as has “patriarchy”. But the critical issue is what it means in the living struggle against sexism here and now. I never bought an “I’ll be a post-feminist in a post-patriarchy” t-shirt because I was deeply attached to the idea that “patriarchy” signified a theory opposed to “class”. But I was wrong and my mistake had a very simple cause: at the time I was not active in feminist politics. I was not immersed in the struggle. I did not understand its currents, trajectories and debates. The comrades in active feminist struggle knew much better than I how to build the movement, and the party, in that context.

The problems with Cliff’s formulations -- and their later elaborations by Lindsey German and others -- are much deeper than semantics because they have led to abstention from the living struggle against women’s oppression in all its forms. They create an internally consistent theoretical construct which, divorced from living struggle, becomes ever more divorced from reality.

The recent mishandling of sexual assault allegations in the British SWP are a stark example. One contribution stood out for me in the leaked transcript from the report of the disputes committee to the party’s 2012 conference. A member of the committee, a comrade who had worked as a rape crisis counsellor, introduced her remarks with this statement:

Everybody who sat on this DC sat as revolutionary socialists but also with our world experience.

Does she see these as two separate perspectives? As a rape crisis counsellor this comrade must have been aware of the long struggle by feminists – of all stripes – to enact laws against sexual violence in all its forms and against all women, procedures to protect complainants and combat sexism in the justice system. Did she feel she had to suspend this “world experience” when dealing with the issue within her own party?

The same problem emerged here in Melbourne when Socialist Alternative abstained from and criticised a rally against sexual violence following a brutal rape and murder, arguing that “… mobilisations around street crime, especially that directed against white women and children, will always tend to lead in a pro-state, pro-authority direction …” [See also "Left debate: Organising women against sexist violence".]

In the heated discussion that ensued on social media, one enthusiastic young Socialist Alternative member blurted that it was “anti-working class” to call for the prosecution of working-class men who commit rape. He did not reply when asked whether he supported laws against sexual assault. (I suspect the discussion ended when wiser heads in his party saw where the discussion was going. A cursory look at Socialist Alternative’s newspaper Red Flag shows the party will campaign for law reform, and even enforcement, on social issues.)

These are extreme examples, but I would argue they are the natural end point of class-reductionist theories about the oppression of women, such as Cliff’s. They isolate party members from the ebb and flow of real struggles by women in the real societies in which we live, love and work. But our parties exist in these same societies. As revolutionaries surely our first task is to understand our material reality – who we are, where we are and how we relate to the world?

I disagree with Lindsey German that Abbie and Sharon’s re-think on feminism ignores her, Cliff’s or others’ writing from the IST tradition or that it fails to put forward a different analysis about where oppression comes from and how it can be ended. They are clearly still of the view, as am I, that women’s oppression originates with class society and will only be overthrown when the working class, as the only class with the power to do so, overthrows capitalism and ends class divisions.

All hope for future unity of revolutionary socialists rests on that shared understanding. But it is not enough. We must also agree on what to do, together, here and now.

[Karen Fletcher is a member of the Socialist Alliance living in Melbourne.]

Comments

Come on

I fail to see how this is any way a constructive contribution to discussion around these issues.

If you're going to criticise SA then do so on the basis of what its public positions are on reclaim the night/ Jill Meagher/ the sentencing issue. Don't use an isolated comment to somehow prove it is some kind of reflection of Tony Cliff's "logic" on these matters.

While I don't agree with SA's blanket abstention from RTN, I think many of the issues the comrades have raised are valid. I certainly remember the DSP being far more ambivalent about RTN in the past.

Conflating one remark with the UK SWP's inept handling of rape allegations is quite frankly stretching things at best, at worst it is a smear.

There's plenty of cases of left organisations that have come to grief around similar incidents which have had a more explicitly "feminist" identity than the UK SWP. Most recently there is the IWW. I can think of at least one similar experience during the DSP faction fight in 2005 where allegations of sexual harassment were brushed aside.

The thing that strikes me is the similarity between McCann's analysis and Cliff's. The latter has its problems but I do see it as odd that the author would oppose the promotion of McCann's pamphlet now. Perhaps it's Karen's positions that have shifted?

Actually the Socialist

Actually the Socialist Alternative position is clear from this article which is referred to quite clearly as extremely problematical.
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7577:jill-meag...
This article was also endorsed by Socialist Alternative's last national conference as reflecting the views of the party.
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7612:sa-nation...

"In a session on the debates surrounding the ruling class mobilisation that occurred in response to the rape and murder of Jill Meagher, delegates passed a motion endorsing the general political line of Louise O’Shea’s article “Jill Meagher, Reclaim the Night and the political right”."

Nicely Said!

I was glad to see a few things here that I've been thinking myself articulated so clearly.

It's such an easy trap to Marxists to fall into a class-simplism, rather than a complex and dialectical class analysis of any given injustice... I think Orwell parodies this well in Animal Farm with the slogan: "four-legs good; two-legs bad." A handy slogan, but it's not always quite that simple.

I think that there are some spheres of struggle today where the fundamental class nature of the struggle is absolutely clear to everyone: casualisation of university teachers, the LNP's platform on "work-choices" type legislation, funding of the public sector etc. In other areas, it's actually more complex: race, gender, sexuality, the third-world and so on.

One of my favourite theoretical works is relevant here: Lenin's pamphlet on Imperialism in which he shows that even though the developed and undeveloped world aren't obviously divided over class (you still have the national bourgeoisie in the developing world, and over privileged workers in the developed world etc.), but even though there are proletarian and bourgeoisie elements on both sides of this struggle, SYSTEMIC Capitalism was at the base, causing the injustice.

Therefore, international solidarity is not OBVIOUSLY class-struggle, but is a logical consequence of class-struggle. This is EXACTLY the same logic that we should apply to feminism, anti-racism and anti-homophobia struggles.

It is so important for us to remember - our struggle isn't against every evil Capitalist on an individual basis. Punching Bill Gates in the nose does not count as a victory for socialism. It's the SYSTEM we're fighting.

Let me pose the question in a provocative way:

If a working class man rapes a bourgeoisie woman, whose side are we on? Anyone who hesitates to say they're on the side of the rape victim (as many hesistated in the case of Jill Meagher) needs to re-enroll in their Introduction to Socialism/Marxism 101 class, and repeat the class until they get it. As marxists, we're ALWAYS on the side of the oppressed against the oppressor, although we understand that class division is more fundamental to the problem - rape is the outworking of that injustice, and itself is a valid basis for MASS struggle.

Or I could frame it differently:

If a bunch of working-class rednecks were to gay-bash a bourgeoisie man, say the CEO of a large bank, and he died painfully from injuries in the attack, whose side are we on? As Marxists, we can't afford to blink on this question. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, we're on the side of the CEO here. It doesn't mitigate the crimes he might have committed against workers in his role in the finance industry - but if he is the victim of a homophobic attack then we oppose the homophobia and the violence.

Finally (I know I'm saying a lot here) - I think this same theoretical problem can be applied to the current joint-caucuses which have recently kicked off in Community Action Against Homophobia where just this week we discussed at length what our attitude should be to reformist and liberal elements in the Marriage Equality campaign now that Barry O'Farrell's Liberal-National government might likely be the first to cave in to our demands and give us state based same-sex marriages in NSW. How's that for a complexity!?

Feminism and Patriarchy

State terror, sectarian terror, domestic terror are all manifestations of patriarchy - the actions of men ruling over communities and asserting or defending that rule. The future of humanity means overcoming patriarchy in all its forms; religious, secular and yes in revolutionary organisation too. Patriarchy is organically woven into the structure of the capitalist mode of production. To be fully anti-capitalist therefore means being thoroughly against patriarchy in theory and practice - at the same time! The organisations headed by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc did not advance economic welfare or social equality for women or men. To be revolutionary in the 20th and 21st centuries means throwing out this 'muck of ages' wherever it still lurks. [See 'Clinging onto Patriarchy' and 'Religion versus Women's rights'. at www.critical-mass.net. ] Regards, Roy

United Fronts with Barry O'Farrell?

Karl charges Socialist Alternative (of which I'm a member) with "class simplism" as compared to his "complex and dialectical class analysis". But the joint caucus he mentioned saw himself and a member of Socialist Alliance's national leadership argue that Barry O'Farrell (NSW's Liberal Premier) should be considered to speak on the platform of an upcoming marriage equality demonstration - on the basis of pursuing what they called the "united front" strategy! The term "class collaboration" was actually used as if it was a positive method to pursue. When it comes to understanding class, it is not us who is confused but you.
I'll leave aside the debate about how relevant it is to consider tiny campaign groups to represent a "united front" (it's not), more important is that the term has been adopted by members of Socialist Alliance to pursue class collaboration at worst, or senseless opportunism at best. Working-class self emancipation, along with women's and queer liberation, are not served by cosying up to any austerity-driving representative of the party of the big bourgeoisie as soon as they offer us a small scrap from their table. To invite him to speak would not only be a gross betrayal of the Public Sector Association (who recently gave us serious material and promotional support for our campaign and whose members will bear the brunt of his austerity measures), it would *also* grossly betray the people who support marriage equality.
But back to the topic of violence - whether bourgeois women or gay men are victims of violence (of course they can be) says nothing about how you combat oppression. This seems a basic point that is lost in conversation with Socialist Alliance members.

If people would like to know more about what Socialist Alternative says on the united front strategy, here is an excellent article written by Rick Kuhn in the Marxist Left Review:
http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...

Powered by Drupal - Design by Artinet