[page 8]
The growth of the women's liberation and gay liberation movements has stimulated many questions, both for supporters of these movements and for members of revolutionary groups. Among the issues that crop up repeatedly in discussion and in the writings of those concerned with sexual politics has been the relationship of politics to personal life' and, connected with this, the principles of organisation of the revolutionary party and its spheres of activity. In this article, these questions are considered as they are raised in Capitalism, the Family and Personal Life, Eli Zaretsky's book about the dichotomy between private and public life under These ideas will be new to many readers of Socialist Woman; we hope that they will stimulate discussions among those seeking to develop a theory of social relations, and we invite contributions from readers for publication in future issues.
The goal of the Marxist movement is the liberation of | too stand for the abolition of exploitation and class distinccapitalism (Pluto Press, £1). humanity. This involves the destruction not merely of economic exploitation but of political domination, the oppressive relations of the family, and a series of other things. Anyone who denies this, and attempts to reduce Marxism to merely the struggle in the economy, is not a Marxist but an economic reductionist.
But to define this as the goal of Marxism does not distinguish it from other positions held by different groups which wish to change society. The liberation of humanity through the destruction and overcoming of all exploitative and oppressive social relations is a goal not merely of Marxism, but of anarchism, petty-bourgeois humanism, utopian communism, and so on. It is no accident that all these tendencies are present in the women's liberation movement, particularly among women who call themselves socialist feminists. What distinguishes Marxism from these philosophies is not the goal but the fact that Marxism is the sole theory and practice which outlines the scientifle means. whereby this goal can be achieved. These means are the seizure of political power from the ruling class and the use of that power to begin the work of the destruction and transformation of all social relations emerging from capitalist society. It is only on this basis that a classless society and the climination of the social relations of oppression and exploitation can be achieved. In Lenin's words, Basic propositions and aims are two different things; even the anarchists will agree with us about aims, because they tions.. How do we differ from the anarchists on principles? The principles of communism consist in the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and in the use of state coercion in the transition period. Such are the principles of communism, but they are not its aim." (Lenin — "Speech in Defence of the Tactics of the Communist International')
The Primacy Of Politics From this elementary outline we can already see the main and underlying error of writers like Eli Zaretsky, who criticise Marxism because they believe that the basic locus of Marxist practice and line is the economy. In reality, the focus and dominant element in Marxist practice and line under capitalism is not economics but polities. In the words of the Communist Manifesto, 'the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class", or, as Lenin put it, *Politics comes before economics, that is the ABC of Marxism' (Lenin — 'Once Again on the Trade Unions'). The essential reason for this is elementary: it is not the transformation of the economy which is the precondition for the seizure of state power by the working class, but, on the contrary, the seizure of state power which is the precondition for the transformation of
[page 9]
the economy.' In colonial and 'underdeveloped" countries, the transtormation of the economy by centralised planning may follow hard upon the capture of state power by the working class, while in advanced countries, as Trotsky pointed out, The proletariat... when it takes power, will probably permit market relations to continue for a rather long transitional period, gradually giving them an ever more regulated form' (Writings, 1930, p384).
In short, Zaretsky and others who have criticised "traditional" Marxism by equating it with economic reductionism have missed the point that 'struggle between classes is ultimately resolved at the political - • not at the economic or cultural - level of society" (Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State p.1I). All social relationships, including those of the family and the oppression of women, are defended by the capitalist State and can only be overcome following the destruction of that State. For that reason the primacy of the political is displayed just as much in relation to the wider social struggle as in the economic. But it is precisely the political and not the economic which is the decisive issue.
There are several reasons for the confusion of Zaretsky and the others. First, the practice of many organisations claiming to be Marxist gives the impression that Marxism is above all about economic change. Second, there appears on the surface to be a contradiction between the leading role assigned to the proletariat in Marxist theory and the empirical evidence of the backwardness of the working class (even of its vanguard) on questions of sexual oppression and the need to transform social relations. Hence the assumption that — to put it crudely — a working class which is mainly interested in the size of the pay packet can only lead an "economic revolution". Third, there is the idea that there exist two kinds of Marxism - the economic analysis of capitalist society, and the humanism of the 1844 Manuscripts - and that it is the latter which must be rescued and restored to prominence by those seeking to change social relations. We do not have space here to investigate these questions more fully; they will be discussed in future issues of Socialist Woman. But they show clearly the need to go back to the basic texts of Marxism in order to dispel subsequent distortions.
Politics And Society the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat will be filled by gigantic social struggles against every form of sexual, racist, national and other oppression. A social issue can become a political question (for instance, restrictions, divorce, state repression of gays, nursery cuts). But not every social issue is a political one, although times of social crisis are often characterised by the rapid transformation of social issues to the political level. An example may make under the dictatorship of the proletariat, of laws forbidding homosexual love (as is the case in every deformed and degenerated workers state today) is a specifically political issue.
For fewer people will choose a homosexual orientation under the dictatorship of the proletariat is, however, not a political but a social and personal question.
The Transition Period This dominance of politics is precisely a characteristic of the period of transition from capitalist society, through the dictatorship of the proletariat, to socialism. The withering away of the State must also be the withering away of politics. Lenin's slogan -frequently raised after after — more economics and less politics' (which should well have been extended to less politics and more economics, and more social questions) will become much more apt after the victory of the proletariat in more countries. The supremacy of politics is not a moral question but a characteristic of a specific period of social development. For without the wielding of State - therefore specifically political - power, the working class cannot defend the workers state, or proceed to the transformation of all social relations. Victorious world revolution, by eliminating the need for this repressive function, will greatly decrease the need for State power, greatly speed the withering of the State, and therefore reduce politics to a vastly less exalted place than that which it occupies in the present period of class struggle."
In common with the women's movement and many of its theorists, Marxism rejects the notion that sexual orientation, life-style, personal relations, etc. are purely individual questions. However, the counterposition involved here is not individual BUILD A SOCIALIST OPPOSTON FOR A UNIRED REVOLTIONARY OROANISATICN