Autonomy of the Women's Movement

The Autonomy of the Women's Movement a ©

INTRODUCTION

As socialists in the women’s movement, there are certain things we can assume as the starting point for any discussion: On the autonomy of the women’s movement.

1. That whether we started from an interest in countering the oppression of women, and came to an understanding that this could only be achieved within the context of overthrowing the capitalist system; or whether we started out as revolutionaries who came to see the struggle for women’s liberation as am integral part of the revolutionary struggle; we have in common with the women in the movement an understanding of the need to overthrow the capitalist system.

2. Therefore we would also agree that women’s oppression is rooted in the society in which we live, and not in some eternal male/female antagonism. And that the overthrow of capitalism is a necessary prerequisite for the liberation of women.

But what exactly do we mean by the overthrow of capitalism? Does the capitalist system have to be overthrown by a revolution of the working class, and other forces opposed to capitalism, or can it be taken over in stages, or reformed out of existence? The recent tragic events in Chile have demonstrated that the peaceful, parliamentary road to socialism effectively disarms the masses, literally, and theoretically and prepares the way for the capitalist order to re-establish its dominance.

This pamphlet takes as its starting point the need for the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system and the capitalist class, because political and economic power will not be given up voluntarily by those who wield it and profit by it.

But underlying even this measure of agreement, if it exists, there is a whole series of analyses; in order to clarify whatever differences may exist, and attempt to resolve them, we felt it necessary to clarify: (a) the nature of the capitalist state (b) the nature of the socialist revolution (c) the nature and role of the revolutionary party.

A. THE NATURE OF THE CAPITALIST STATE

When it comes to defining the nature of the capitalist state, there are several misconceptions both within the left, and about the left, which have to be cleared up.

{i} Within the left: Some groups on the left take literally Marx's statement about the state being “armed bodies of men” and see the main function of the state as being the physical defence of the means of production, i.e. the role of the state is only seen in terms of its relationship to the industrial working class, organised at the point of production. (The corollary of this is to see the socialist revolution in terms of the industrial working class versus the rest of society, plus a few irrelevant groups). But this view relegates something like the Women’s Liberation Movement at best to the periphery of the revolutionary struggle, and at worst characterises it as a diversion from that struggle. Therefore that section of the left which in theit propaganda and their practice take up these positions vis a vis the Women’s Liberation Movement, do so not merely from male chauvinist backwardness, but because they have a wrong analysis of the nature of the capitalist state, and flowing from that, of the socialist revolution and the revolutionary party.

What then is the capitalist state? When Marx talks about “bodies of armed men” he means the state having a monopoly of legitimate violence; having at its disposal, as a Jast resort (apart from the question of the role of the police, legal system, etc.) this legitimised physical force. But this would not explain how in periods of relative stability and social peace the capitalist order prevails without recourse to such means. The capitalist system has many tools at its disposal. Wage differentials separate workers from one another in terms of immediate material interests; the absence of socialisation of labour, the position of women in the family separate the material interests of men from women; shortage of jobs separates the interests of the employed from the unemployed, and breeds racialism in the working class etc. And so it is not enough to examine the role of the state in terms of its defence of the means of production, we«must also understand the importance of bourgeois ideology and institutions of the bourgeois state, e.g. the family in terms of the role they play in defence of the refations of production i.e. the exploitative relationship between the capitalist class which owns the means of production — the workers tools; and the working class which owns nothing but labour power which it must sell on the market to survive. | The family, for example, defends the relations of capitalist production in that it both physically reproduces the new labour force and sustains the existing one; and by its very structure trains the working class in an acceptance of the divisions in society (between classes, and within the working class) i.e. between men and women, between earners and non earners etc., as the ‘‘natural order of things” and similarly with the relationship between the classes.

Thus to overthrow the capitalist state, and institute an alternative workers state, it is necessary to extend the struggle beyond the factories. In the overthrow of the capitalist state the role of the working class is central, (see Section B), but not one of splendid isolation. Because the state defends more than just the means of production, it cannot be overthrown just from the point of production.

Therefore all those who are exploited and oppressed under capitalism have more than just a peripheral supportive role to play. As Trotsky said in the Transitional Programme (p.30): ‘"The deepening of the social crisis will increase not only the suffering of the masses, but also their impatience, persistence and pressure.

Ever new layers of the oppressed will raise their heads and come forward with their demands. Millions of toil worn ‘little men’ to whom the reformist leaders never give a thought will begin to pound insistently on the doors of the workers movement. The unemployed will join the movement, the agricultural workers, the ruined and semi-ruined farmers, the oppressed of the cities, the women workers, housewives, proletarianised layers of the intelligentsia — all of these will seek unity and leadership. How are the different demands and forms of struggle to be harmonised. . . ? History has already answered this question, through Soviets. They will unite the representatives of all the fighting groups. . . soviets. . . throw open the doors to all the exploited. Through these doors pass representatives of all strata drawn into the general current of the struggle”.

It is as well to note here, to the question of how to harmonise the struggles Trotsky does not answer: “Join the party” as many groups on the left do. Instead he points to the institutions of dual power which gathered together the representatives of the different groups involved in the struggle.

Thus women, organised as women, around questions which concern t/eir situation in capitalist society, have a role to play in this struggle, as one of the ‘fighting groups”’ And thus the existence of an autonomous movement can be defended in terms of an analysis, not just a belief in our own importance.

The state is not neutral, nor is it merely a collection of institutions. So it is not possible to merely change those institutions, or aspects of the state, which particularly oppress one section of society, to solve the problems of that group, e.g. it is not possible to change the role and structure of the family in a vacuum. Nor would it be possible to rely on the neutrality of the rest of the state while this was going on. The state as a whole must be taken on and overthrown, and thus a fusion of the struggles of the exploited and pppressed is necessary. Also an alternative state cannot represent only one section of society, even if this is the central force — the working class”. It must as Trotsky outlines above, represent all the fighting groups (The Soviet being the embryo, of the altemative state formation.)

(ii) These confusions and incorrect positions held within the left, lead to a certain practice which produces an understandable reaction from the Women’s Liberation Movement; that these groups are really only interested in the struggles of the industrial working class; that they are only in the Women’s Liberation Movement to recruit from it; that the women of the revolutionary left, are there despite the politics and practice of their organisations, not because of them; that such organisations have nothing to offer them; and would in fact destroy or hinder their involvement in Women's Liberation, because membership of a male dominated group would mean subordinating one’s interest in Women’s Liberation to the dominant interests of this male dominated group.

It is not possible to say categorically all of this is false; clearly much of it is based on observable fact, or is near enough to make the assumption understandable. But all the groups must be examined in terms of their theory and practice. Since the oppression of women can and must be challenged everywhere, then it is not sufficient to judge everyone in terms of how they relate to the Women’s Liberation Movement.

Sut the most important point to stress here is that the autonomy of the movement does not depend on the strict separation of membership of the left groups from the Women’s Liberation Movement. Given the above analysis the left groups would have the position of defending the existence of the autonomous movement, and taking part in it, because they want to assist the development of all the fighting forces. There should be no conditions on this support, except ones of class principle; it should not be dependent, in other words, on how many recruits can be made in what period of time, although one is not of course opposed to recruiting. The role of the revolutionary party (see Section C) is not to incorporate all the available forces, but to give them leadership and fuse their struggles into the revolutionary struggle.

B. THE NATURE OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Two points need clarifying here, again because of confusions both within and about the left. 1. What do we mean by the ‘‘central role’ of the working class?

2. What therefore is the role of the other ‘‘fighting groups": in particular the Women’s Liberation Movement? 1. The Central Role of the Working Class: When Marx analysed capitalism he did so in terms of the two major classes in that society; bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie owns the means of production employs labour to work the means of production, and thus produce a commodity which when sold on the market realises a profit. The working class own nothing but labour power and exists by selling this on the market for wages (individual property does not rank with ownership of the means of production because it can only be consumed, albeit perhaps slowly, e.g. a house, a car, but cannot produce a surplus). The working class is a class of wage labourers; the bourgeoisie a class of exploiters.

The proletariat is that part of the working class which produces surplus value, i.e. those workers whose labour produces a commodity which realises a profit when sold on the market, e.g. car workers, or adds to the value of a product which realises a profit, e.g. transport Workers.

In other words, clerical workers, workers in retail, service industries are wage labourers but not proletarians because they do not produce a commodity which can realise a profit. {Housewives produce values in the home which are immediately consumed within the home, not exchanged on the market — they produce values, not surplus value. And because they do not sell their labour on the market but work privately in the home, etc., their work is not waged labour.)

Thus it is in the interests of the capitalist class to realise the maximum profit (i.e. increase the productivity of the workers’ labour) and in the interests of the workers to maximise the return they get for their labour. i.e. their interests are diametrically opposed and irreconcileable. In periods of economic boom, their interests seem compatible, because the capitalists can spare enough from steadily increasing profits to keep the standard of living of the working class stable, or increase it (not increase the workers share of the total product, because this has not risen the past 50 years at least, but as the standard of living of society as a whole rises, this is reflected withing the working class). But in a period of economic depression and crisis, the standard of living i.e. the value of real wages for the working class must be held down in order to maintain profits. In such a period the incompatibility of interests of the two classes becomes ever more apparent. And given that the nature of capitalism leads it to spiralling economic crises, until the market system, based on profit becomes a constraint on the productive potential of society, the only long term solution for the working class is to overthrow the capitalist system.

The history of humanity is the history of one economic system being superceded by another and a corresponding shift in political power and social dominance from one class to another. But the overthrow of capitalism by the working class is unique in that political power will then be taken by the lowest social class, and the only way forward then is for the system of exploitation to end.

Because a social system is based in the economic organisation of that system, and a social class has dominance according to its relation to the economic system, that part of the working class organised by capitalist production at the point of production has a special role to play in the overthrow of capitalism. Numerically, orgainisationally, and because of its relation to production, the working class is the only force in capitalist society capable as a class of playing that role. Other sections of society are oppressed by capitalism but alone they are not capable of challenging the capitalist state for power. 2. But the working class also need allies. Because what it must do in order to secure victory is not just seize control of the means of production. It must also wrest political power from the hands of the capitalists; it must overthrow that state, and its institutions, it must set up its own bodies of armed men to defend the gains made in the struggle; and it must set up an alternative state. This requires

the fusion of the struggles of the industrial working class, and the other fighting groups in struggle, and also in bodies of dual power — soviets. But how does the struggle unford? The working class, organised at the point of production, is mainly concerned with the trade union struggle. Other sections of the working class are concerned with their own immediate problems; women are concerned with housing, rents, prices, childcare, etc. and with countering the oppression of women; blacks are concerned with the problems of the black community, countering racism and black oppression etc. How do these struggles fuse?

(a) THE UNITED FRONT United activity with other forces on a particular issue in order to maximise the forces available on that issue. This does not mean that differences between these groups are buried, but that they recognise that on a particular issue they have agreement on which to organise common activity.

Such united front activities strengthen the forces available, and bring together a variety of forces _ in the one campaign. In the present period this is very important, especially considering the weakness of the forces considered in isolation from one another. But it cannot be equated with the fusion of the various struggles. A prices committee set up jointly by a housewives committee and a trades council is an excellent development, but is not the same as housewives organised as a force to carry out a general strike for example which would topple the government, or extending such a struggle through councils of action to overthrow the capitalist state.

(b) THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY The role of the revolutionary party in fusing the various struggles into one will be discussed further in Section C.

Again, misunderstandings and mistakes on the left can lead to mistaken attitudes to this question of linking up and fusing struggles. It is not enough to recognise that this is necessary.

It is also necessary to understand how it can be achieved. If one has an incorrect understanding of what is meant by the “central role” of the working class, it can lead to such demands as “Orange and Green unite and fight” in connection with the situation in Ireland, or “‘Black and white unite and fight” directed at the black militants. The fact that a large part of the organised working class in Northern Ireland is Loyalist should not obscure the fact that they are, in that situation, playing a reactionary role on the side of British imperialism; nor should the fact that the British working class is largely white make us blind to the fact that there is a strong racialist current in that working class. And so while such unity is what we would all like to see, to make such demands is not to further that potential unity, or to make much of an impact on the attitudes of the Orangemen/racist white workers. In fact what such demands really mean is that those forces fighting against their oppression should hold back their struggle until the agents of their oppression have a change of heart and decide to join them. Lenin fought against those Social Democrats who wanted to play down the nationalist and peasant struggles as being diversions from the main struggle on the grounds that such struggles, when pushed to their utmost, undermined the stability of the capitalist system and could act as an example for the working class (e.g. the studentstruggle May ‘68 in France, and the re-introduction of many tactics of struggle into the working class movement through the student example — occupations, flying pickets, etc.). The same thing applies to the women’s movement. We should not be diverted from organising and pursuing the struggle against women’s oppression on the grounds that it is splitting women off from men, dividing the forces along sex lines, etc. The problem is that such division already exists, and we will not counter it by waiting passively for some mythical surge of awareness on the part of men, or on the part of the organised working class.

We will help to develop such an awareness by our public activities, by our analysis of the situation of women, by demonstrating that we can organise, can fight and can make a theoretical contribution, as well as by initiating united activities around issues related to the oppression of women.

C. THE ROLE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY

To determine what the needs are of the situation, we must recognise the nature of the capitalist class and the capitalist state. The enemy is organised, centralised, experienced, with all the forces of the state at its disposal. To imagine that such an enemy can be overthrown spontaneously is to romanticise, and disarm, the forces which will be challenging it. We know from our experience in the Women’s Liberation Movement that to look to the unions for our salvation is foolish. Nor are the unions capable of achieving victory in the name of the industrial We know from our experience in the Women's Liberation Movement that to look to the unions for our salvation is foolish. Nor are the unions capable of achieving victory in the name of the industrial working class because we have already looked at the nature of the state, and of the form of struggle necessary to topple it. It cannot be conducted merely at the point of production, but must be waged as a common struggle, involving all the fighting forces and structured through bodies of elected representatives of all these forces. Therefore the struggle cannot be waged by one section of society alone, on behalf of all the others, or by all of them at different times, or by all of them tackling different aspects simultaneously. \t must be fused, centralised, and the uneven development of consciousness must be countered. Above all this means it must have leadership and direction.

There is a tremendous resistance in the Women’s Liberation Movement to the concept of “leaders’’ but this has to be distinguished from leadership. A resentment of self appointed leaders is understandable and correct. Also the hostility to the cult of leaders seen in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc. But it would be wrong to extend this into a rejection of “‘leadership”.

Again many of the misconceptions about the left are in fact a product of mistaken analysis and practice of the left. The revolutionary party is not that organisation on the left which call itself the revolutionary party; it is not characterised by its size (n thousand members); nor can an organisation justify setting itself up as-the revolutionary party simply because the situation demands revolutionary leadership. Rather, it is that organisation which the masses recognise as a revolutionary leadership, which is rooted in the fighting masses in terms of membership and influence; and most important of all, which can and will give revolutionary leadership to them. The size of the party will not be an end in itself, or a justification in itself, but a product of the influence it has with the masses, the fact that it is capable of giving leadership to individual struggles, and of fusing the struggles into

the revolutionary struggle to seize power. No single one of these characteristics is enough. A reformist party, no matter of what Size, would not be the revolutionary party, because its politics and its programme would mean a constant capitulation to the pressures of capitalism. It must develop an analysis of capitalist society and the tasks necessary for its overthrow; must be able theoretically and Practically to answer the problems posed by the struggle, generalise the experience of all sections of society into an overall strategy, and thus fuse all the separate struggles within the framework of the overthrow of capitalism. How does the autonomous women's movement fit into this picture? \|t is not necessary, in order for the party to fulfil its functions that it incorporate all the forces in the struggle into its organisation, either in terms of all the members of the Women's Liberation Movement being members, or of Women's Liberation being simply an adjunct of the party. Therefore this is not the perspective. The Women’s Liberation Movement organises a section of women, and through it, the demands it raises, the campaigns it engages in and the ideas it discusses helps to develop political understanding among a section of society not easily reached otherwise. Through its activities it organises and trains women to fight for their own rights and the rights of others. Because oppression is not simply a question of economics it can develop an understanding of the nature of the state, and the measures necessary to fight it. It also helps counter and compensate for the exceptionally difficult situations in which many women find themselves in terms of confidence, a recognition of their own potential, and helps them to generalise their own immediate experiences and translate them into a critical understanding of society. Thus such a movement has its own role to play in the struggle. What is important to remember is that it only has such a role to play within the general framework of the common struggle. As socialists, we are not interested in a women’s movement regardless. of its political colouration. We are concerned that the fight against women's oppression be made part and parcel of the fight for socialism, and as socialists we recognise the potential of the women’s movement for seeing that this is achieved.

Thus, autonomy from what can only be answered by situating the movement in the context of the struggle necessary to prepare the way for the liberation of women. The socialist revolution will not achieve it, but it is a necessary prerequisite. The movement can have an independent existence from left groups, from the organisations of the class, from the revolutionary party, but not from the struggle. And within that autonomy, it is important that one does not allow a sectarian trend to develop, which would isolate the movement from the possibilities increasingly opening up to link up, and in some cases partially fuse struggles. MWe should not refuse to take part, as a movement, in activities not immediately concerned with our demands and campaigns, and we should press for support from other left forces for our initiatives.

Also, although autonomy is in a sense a practical necessity, it is more than just that, because such a justification could be based on an empirical approach, what suits the needs of the moment, or a sectarian one, what suits the needs of women. But given that autonomy does not contradict a much broader analysis, then it is possible to see it in terms of that analysis and in terms of the needs of the overall strategy of the revolutionary struggle, which is much more than practical necessity.

Women's Commission,

MOVEMENT FOR A SOCIALIST REPUBLIC

FOURTH

INTERNATION AL

'S Movement and tie. ' jourt international international press correspondence INPREC OR , 76 rue Antoine Dansaert Brussels-1000 Belgium

INTER NATIONAL PRESS CORRES PONDE NCE

Fortnightly information organ of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International published in English, French, Spanish, and German.

SUBSCRIPTION: 25 issues (1 year): £7 TO SUBSCRIBE: TO PAY BY PERSONAL CHECK OR INT'L BANK MONEY ORDER: Send name and address to INPRECOR with check made to the order of GISELA SCHOLTZ.

TO PAY BY INT'L POSTAL ORDER: Send name and address to INPRECOR. Send postal order to GISELA SCHOI.TZ, 127 rue Josse Impens, Brussels 3, Acct. No. CC POOO-108 5001-56

SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DOMESTIC: £7 per year £3.50 for six months | FOREIGN: £9 per year surface mail F12 per year airmail |Writeto RED WEE KLY (distribution), ~97 Caledonian Road, London N.1,} |

Movement for a Socialist I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION Republic |

ABOUT THE M.S.R.

APM ne os oe x woes even gta Send to: M.S.R.

RODRUSS <n wc cccces fume Obes * c/o 38 Clanawley Road Killester, Dublin 5. THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT & THE STRUGGLE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS. 15 THE HOUSEWIFE AND HER LABOUR UNDER CAPITALISM. 20p WOMEN WORKERS IN BRITAIN: A HANDBOOK. 25p A WOMAN'S PLACE IN THE USSR. 25p | WOMEN AND THE FAMILY (Trotsky) A 55p | PLOUGH BOOK SERVICE Books by Evelyn Reed: | 2 Mary Street | WOMAN'S EVOLUTION. £2.25 Dublin 1.

PROBLEMS OF WOMEN'S LIBERATION. 65p | IS BIOLOGY WOMAN'S DESTINY? 25p : BRITISH STRATEGY IN NORTHERN IRELAND. 25p IRISH NATIONALISM & BRITISH IMPERIALISM. 25p WHAT IS TROTSKYISM? 10p

BANSHEE

JOURNAL OF IRISHWOMEN UNITED

SUBSCRIPTIONS to ‘BANSHEE’ I enclose £1 for the next 6 issues of ‘Banshee’!

(Postage included ) Se "THERE Wikh BE NO

| WOMENS LIBERATION

WITHOUT

REVOLUTION

¥ THERE will BE NO

REVOLUTION

7 WiTHOUT Send to: ‘BANSHEE’ C/o Irishwomen United, | | | 2 .

; 12 Lr. Pembroke Siréet See WOMENS LIBERATION Dublin 2. eli, oscisaskvtouxWcwkesbaiseiel Address ............... ieetidiatem eae t aces: cesta eas PU URE P OCCUR ECT ETOP CCP CPP ee eee eee ee eee eee ee