Secondary title: Wait for the revolution, babe!
This to be honest feels like déjà vu. I have had this argument regarding patriarchy and women’s autonomy more times than I can remember. Frankly, it is getting so tedious. Why does the Left find it so difficult to accept it?
I had this debate with Mark Fischer from Weekly Worker sometime in 2004(read the archive to get a taster) and now it is happening again. Groundhog Day all over again…..this time it is a Labour Leftie writing to Briefing taking exception at my piece I wrote for the International Women’s Day edition. Unfortunately, I can’t link to it (sub only) but I can give you a flavour of the arguments. I don’t want to give a disservice to the comrade nor distort his words.
Different Leftie men…same arguments though. Fortunately, I have had this debate, like I said, many times that I can dust off my old documents written on the subject because nothing different is being put forward. Certainly, no real thought provoking analysis is being put forward.
So pardon me for being a tad tetchy about this but as a Socialist feminist these constant debates fill me with utter despair, the Left should and bloody does know better but I believe this exposes the underlining resistance and defensiveness in examining own individual behaviour. The Left is not hermetically sealed from the sexism that is reflected in patriarchal capitalism. Do men benefit from women’s oppression? Yes, indeed they do.
Comrades, lets be serious, Socialism is compatible with feminism, patriarchy exists and the Left should support women’s autonomy as this furthers the class struggle….
So after that preamble here is the letter I have written to Labour Briefing in response to the article from the comrade.
Dear Labour Briefing,
In reply to Adam Spencer’s article, Marx and women’s liberation, patriarchy is a term that covers a variety of observable social phenomena. Some of these things are difficult to slot into the categories used by Marx in Capital. An example would be sexist bosses harassing their female staff members. Furthermore violence against women and women being treated like sub-humans pre-date capitalism. By and large, women in pre-capitalist societies faced unbearable oppression. Women face sexist behaviour both on the Left and in the labour movement in general. Yet comrade Spencer says that we should ignore all this as it will be swept away come the revolution.
He argues that ‘Forms of oppression based upon gender or race are part of the superstructure of ideas that follow from the economic mode of production. Therefore women’s oppression is a consequence of class oppression and their liberation of the working class as a whole. It cannot be achieved separately’.
Firstly, I never argued in my original article that liberation can be achieved separately. I support women’s autonomy and not separatism. Unfortunately, the ideological differences between separatism and autonomy get confused, and believe me there are differences. An autonomous organisation is enabling a democratic way for women to speak for themselves about the oppression they face.
Secondly, comrade Spencer asserts that there is a hierarchy of oppression with class being at the apex while all forms of oppression are subordinate. Furthermore comrade Spencer states, ‘However, the objective must not be women’s liberation separate from the liberation of the working class as a whole, since that is simply not possible within a Marxist framework’.
He gets things the wrong way round as to how the labour movement and the Left should relate to women’s liberation. Rather than grandly from on high decreeing that the struggle against capitalist exploitation takes precedence over even thinking about challenging other forms of oppression we should be making sure that the labour movement takes a stand against all forms of oppression.
For these reasons it is clear that Marxists should embrace the self organisation of women and other specifically oppressed groups in society.
Indeed I think Marxists should go further and have the self confidence to recognise the leadership of autonomously organised women in the struggle for women’s’ liberation.
This not to oppose the involvement of men in the struggle for women’s liberation. It should be natural for any revolutionary to wish to stand firm with any group of people fighting against the oppression they face. Indeed for the working class to ever learn how to free itself as a whole such a response must become the response of broad layers of the class.
Unfortunately, comrade Spencer does indeed come across as a ‘mechanical Marxist’ something which he didn’t wish to be characterised as.
Comradely,
Louise Whittle
Sometihing I read recently about the word, “Socialism’ concerns the behaviour of Karl Marx. It is well known that Karl Marx with his friend Engles visited brothels. In these brothels there were underage children. It is very likely that Marx had sex with underage girls. Maybe this explains why Marx has nothing to say about women.
The founder of the word, “Socialist’ was I fact a pedophile.
I don’t know where the writer got the information from but every time I hear the word, “Socialism” I connect it with pedophilia and Gary Glitter.
Pingback: Topics about Womens » Archive » Patriarchy, women’s autonomy, capitalism, and all that jazz…….