[page 11]
Strength of women's movement is based on the fact that It Includes all women prepared to fight for its demands. FROM SEND WHISPER SCREAM LESBIAN LIBERATION HOME VOW Photo: AHRIS DAVIES (Report)
[page 12]
between Marxism and Stalinism.
It is certainly true, as we have analysed here, that Marxists do hold and understand that only the seizure and wielding of political power by the working class can even begin to establish the basis for social liberation. Oppression is based on material forces and relations of society and not on human psychology. It cannot be overcome except by equally massive material forces. The overcoming of the oppression of women requires not merely ideological pressure but the elimination of privatised domestic labour, the family, and many other things. Only the State possesses the vast resources to start such a work of social reconstruction. For this reason Marxists are clear that the liberation of women passes through the establishment of the political power of the working class and that every other route is utopianism.
But although the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is an indispensable step towards overcoming social oppression, it does not by itself automatically eliminate it. The society which emerges from a proletarian revolution will not in the slightest be a utopia. In the struggle against the capitalist class the different layers within the working class - the oppressed nationalities, women, and those suffering racist oppression — all have a common enemy, and thestruggle will press the oppressed and exploited together to create a common political instrument to achieve victory. But the very course of that fight iself, and even more when the danger of capitalist restoration is eliminated, will see a differentiation among the forces fighting capitalism. " Although there is no class division between the male section of the working class and the overwhelming majority of women in society, and men do not exploit women in the Marxist class sense, it is absolutely clear that the installation of the dictatorship of the proletariat will not achieve the liberation of women or of any other oppressed social group in one fell swoop. Not merely will immense legacies of backwardness exist on the oppression of women, but there are also objective conflicts which will take place under the dictatorship of the proletariat. While in the historical sense the interests of all the oppressed and exploited coincide in the development of the productive forces and the social transformation which this makes possible, very real clashes of immediate social interest will nevertheless exist in the short term. Whether to increase the living standards of workers in ex-imperialist countries at the fastest possible rate or whether to usethe economic surpluses of these states to speed up further industrialisation of ex-colonial states; what resources to allocate to improving general conditions at work and what to eliminating private domestic labour as rapidiy as possible — these are the sort of very real choices which will be faced by the dictatorship of the proletariar. Only a massive development of the productive forces, taking decades to achieve, will succeed in eliminating such choices. Until then, men will still be in a privileged oppressive relationship in relation to women, workers of dominant nationalities in relation to oppressed nationalities, and so on. Material bases of forms of social oppression will still continue to exist for a definite period even under the dictatorship of the proletariat. "
Placed in this historic perspective, it is absolutely clear that neither women nor any other oppressed layer will be granted' their liberation by the revolutionary party, by the white male working class, by the omniscient thoughts of Chairman Mao, or by any other such means. Such a concept is utopianism and not Marxism. Women and every other oppressed group will have to fight for and win their liberation in the struggle against the underdevelopment of production and the residues of class society as these are refracted through the dictatorship of the proletariat - including the backwardness that will still exist in the working class. In short, far from being a peaceful bureaucratic paradise, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a gigantic period of social struggles as oppressed masses fight for their full liberation.
In this context it is absolutely obvious that even a multiplicity of workers parties based on the democracy of workers councils, let alone the actual situation which exists in Eastern Europe, would be totally inadequate to overcome social oppressions. already pointed out in Russia that workers required trade unions to protect them against the errors of even their own State. A thousand times more will women require their own independent organisations to protect them against the errors of the workers State and to develop an immense struggle for their liberation. The very same reasons which lead Marxists to the conclusion of the necessity of political power and of a political party make them assert the autonomy of the women's movement both under capitalism and under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Stalinist suppression in Eastern Europe of an autonomous women's movement, of independent trade unions, and their oppression of gays, has nothing in common with Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat will see not the lessening of the need for an independent women's movement but on the contrary its tremendous development."
The Withering Away Of The Party By outlining the nature of the autonomy of the women's liberation movement and of the dictatorship of the proletariat we have, however, also outlined the final historic limitations of the State, of politics, and therefore of the party. A State power in itself cannot overcome all the bases of human oppression.
The State of the dictatorship of the proletariat can grant self-determination to nations denied it by capitalism, it can totally legalise abortion which is denied by the bourgeoisic, it can make abortion and contraception freely available on demand, it can institute preferential hiring and education for women, it can protect the rights of gays and blacks even with armed force, it can establish the right of black workers in the United States to create their own state if they wish, it can place immense financial and material resources at the disposal of the automomous women's, gay, black and other movements. Without destroying the capitalist State which defended the old social relations, and without undertaking the vast task of the reconstruction of society that only a political power makes possible, the foundations of human liberation cannot But a political power cannot legislate human minds and it cannot penetrate into every nook and cranny where the filth of class society haslodged. Only an immensesocial struggle by all the exploited and oppressed can finally cleanse society. The proletarian State can aid that process but it cannot substitute for it. Furthermore, at a certain point even the very existence of the bureaucracy, the armed force, and the division of labour of a specifically State organisation becomes a barrier to that which society must achieve.
It is here that we return to the relation of goals and means with which we started this discussion. Marxism certainly asserts the necessity of political struggle to establish the State power of the working class. But it is Stalinism that has invented the myth of the intensification of the classs struggle under socialism' and the necessity of 'strengthening the socialist State'. Marxism asserts on the contrary that while the progressive intensification of struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie under capitalism leads to the ever greater intensification of the repressive power of the ruling class (and the increasing domination of polities over every sphere of life), so also the elimination of the struggle against the bourgeoisie through the dictatorship of the proletariat means the progressive elimination of the State and therefore also of politics. In Lenin's classic phrase, 'the proletariat needs only a State which is withering away, i.e. a State so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately and cannot but wither away' (State and Rather than the intensification of the political struggle, what Trotsky said about art and economic construction is the goal of Marxism in the field of social life: "In the measure in which poltical struggles will be eliminated — and in a society where there will be no classes there will be no such struggles — the liberated passions will be channelised into technique, into construction which includes art... All forms of life, such as the cultivation of land, the planning of human habitations, the building of theatres, the methods of socially educating children, the solution of scientific problems, the creation of new styles, will virtually engross all and everybody. People will divide into "parties" over the question of a new gigantic canal, or the distribution of oases in the Sahara... And as all problems in a socialist society - the problems of life which were formerly solved spontaneously and automatically, and the problems of art which were in the custody of special priestly castes — will become the property of all the people, one can say with certainty that collective interests and passions and individual competition will have the widest scope and the most unlimited opportunity... It will be the aesthetic schools around which "parties" will collect, that is, associations of temperaments, of tastes and of moods." (Literature and Revolution)
But the framework which Trotsky outlines, which is the Marxist analysis of the withering of the State, determines the historical limits of politics and therefore of the party. The fact that inverted commas
[page 13]
"parties' in such struggles reflects not punctuation but social reality. The necessity and role of the proletarian party, like that of the primacy of politics, is not an ahistoric development, but one tied to a specific epoch of history: the epoch of capitalism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of the transition to socialism. The less the dominance of politics - and the entire period of the dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the progressive elimination of politics as the arbiter of social struggles — the less will leadership in any sense be exercised by the party. The withering away of the State is also the withering away of the party." Again Trotsky's comments on art apply to all social questions: Undoubtedly a time will come when people will approach the worksof Shakespeare and Byron in the same way as we approach most poets of the Middle Ages, that is, exclusively from the point of view of scientific-historical analysis. Even sooner, however, will come the time when people will stop seeking in Marx's Capital for precepts for their practical activity and Capital will have become a historical document, together with the programme of our party. (Literature and Revolution).
After the overthrow of capitalism and the immense social struggles of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a socialist and communist society will finally eliminate the social basis of the oppression of women, of gays, and of every form of sexual oppression and orientation. At that time, and having gone through its greatest ever development, the women's movement in its present form will not need to exist — or at least will not have the same tasks. But long before such a women's movement is not needed the Marxist party will have disappeared into the museum along with the specifically political form of social struggle.
The Personal And The Political It is from this historical development that we can also see the final form and the real relation of the question of the 'personal" and the 'political'. After God, the State (and therefore politics) is the supreme form of alienation of class society. That alienation, however, can only be overcome through participation in political life and the destruction of the State power of the capitalist class. All other policies amount to utopia.
But despite the means which are thrust upon it, the goal of Marxism is not the glorification of politics but their ending. The society of the future will not develop through the intensification of FOOTNOTES 1. There are a number of other reasons — in particular, that in gripping the consciousness of classes the State represents the general interests of the bourgeoisie and it is only in relation to the State that all questions become matters of 'general concern." Under capitalism, In Marx's words, The sphere of politics has been the only (real) state-sphere in the State, the only sphere in which both form and content was...truly universal. and also under capitalism, 'the State is the "matter of general concern" and In reality by "matters of general concern" ('Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the State'). It is not necessary to deal with these questions here, however, as they are derivative from the central objactive place occupied by the State within formation.
2. This distinction of course fully continues to apply under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin explained the distinction of economics and politics, and the primacy of politics, clearly in the famous debate on the trade unions in the Soviet Union. Trotsky and Bukharin approached the issue from the point of view of the organisation of production - the economic issue. Lenin asserted the issue of politics - of thetrade unions in relation to the Soviet State:
*Politics must take precedence over economics. To argue otherwise is to forget the ABC of Marxism....you forget the ABC of Marxism when you say (or Imply) that the political approach is equivalent to the "economic", and that you can take "the one and the other". What the political approach means...is that the wrong attitude to the trade unions will ruin the Soviet power and topple the dictatorship of the proletariat [emphasia added] ... Bukharin's insistence on combining the political and economic approach has landed him in theoretical eclecticism.
Trotaky and Bukharin make as though they are concerned for the growth of production whereas we have nothing but formal democracy in mind. This picture Is wrong, because the only formulation of the issue (which the Marxist viewpoint allows) Is: without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either.' ('Once Again on the Trade Unions')
3. In relation to the economic struggle, Rosa Luxemburg's is the classic formulation of this process, which occurs even in a revolution:
'But the movement on the whole does not proceed from the economic its political instruments but through outgrowing them. It will destroy alienation through the integration of every aspect of social and natural life into human action and development. Marxism asserts the primacy of the political and the leading role of the party - but only in order to create the basis for the disappearance of them both. The problem is not, as Zaretsky supposes, the "politicisation of the personal" but the elimination of the political altogether. His entire frame of reference is upside down."
Finally, however, we can see that those who believe that the party can or should be a model of future socialist society, or that it should develop a line on every major issue, are bound to end up either in a Stalinist organisation or outside any party — unable to join because the party is not the all-embracing institution they think it ought to be. Such misapprehensions about the role and nature of the party explain why many people in the gay movement and the women's movement reject Leninism. Only by understanding the primacy of politics, and from there defining the areas of party involvement, activity and decision-making, can we really determine where the meeting-point of the 'personal and 'political" lies." J. Ross ABORTION RIGHTS- FIGHTING FOR A SOCIALIST WOMEN'S RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE ABOCTON FLUT 1:
COS: 20฿ - 1° Have you read these Socialist Woman pamphlets? To order elther, Just add 10p for postage & packing [or 15p if ordering both] and send to: Relgocrest Ltd., 328/9 Upper Street, London N.1. to the political, nor even the reverse. Every great political mass action, after it has attained Its political highest point, breaks up into a mass of economic strikes. And that apples not only to each of the great mass strike struggles, but also to the revolution as a whole. With the clarifying and involution of the political struggle, the economic struggle not only does not recede but extends, organises, and becomes Involved in equal measure. Between the two there is the most complete reciprocal action.
Every new onset and every fresh victory of the political struggle is into a powerful impetus extending at the same time its external possibilities and intensifying the inner urge of the workers to better their position, and their desire to struggle. After every foaming wave of political action a fructifying deposit remains behind from which a thousand stalks of economic struggle shoot forth. And ceaseless economic struggle with the capitalists keeps their fighting every political interval; it forms, so to speak, classes, from which the political fight ever renews its strength, and at time leads the indefatigable economic sappers proletariat at all times, now here and now there, conflicts, out of which political conflicts on a large scale unexpectedly explode.' (The Mass Strike)
Trotsky showed the same process in more normal conditions:
The masses may. at certain be completely absorbed in economic struggles and show very little interest in political questions.
Or, suffering a series of defeats in economic struggles, the masses may abruptly turn their attention to politics. depending upon the concrete circumstances and the past experience of the masses - their political activity may go in the direction of either purely parliamentary or extra-parliamentary struggles.' (The Third Perlod of the Comintern's 4. It Is here that the real criticism of some of Lenin's theoretical formulae needs to be made. Lenin, following Engels, defined three chief fields of struggle economic, political and Ideological. In reality however this is not correctly posed. An Infinitely wider range of social struggles exist than simply economic ones. Lenin and Engels singled out the economic because these struggles were at that time massively
[page 14]
larger than, for example, the struggle for the liberation of women. This remained true even into the 1930s, However, since then the social decay of capitaliam has developed far further - not least because of the development of the productive forces it has brought about since 1945 Struggles against every form of oppression - sexual, racist, national, cuitural - have developed to a qualitatively higher level than before the Second World War, let alone since Engels and Lenin's time. This generalised social crisis is in fact one of the chief features distinguishing the present period and making objectively possible the favourable relation of forces in the capitalist countries. Lenin's formula (of economic, political, Ideological), however, leaves out these social struggles as chief areas. No theoretical or practical justification exists for it. The real formulation should be that the three decisive fielde of struggle are social, political, and ideological - or if one wants to maintain the specific category of the economic, then that they are economic. social, political, and Ideological. This is the correct way to deal with the inadequacy of Lenin's formula - not by distorting Marxism In an attempt to insert the general category of 'social"
into political.
5. Maoism may wish to place politics in command' in every sphere of social life but, as discussed below, the real aim of the proletariat is the elimination of the political State, and therefore specifically political struggle, at the most rapid rate made possible by the defeat of the bourgeoisie.
6. Here again we may see that Zaretsky's opposition is not specifically to Leninism but in reality to Marxism itself. Zaretsky takes hold of the words of Marx's famous distinction between personal" and "public" but he gives this distinction an explanation which proceeds precisely from his economist framework and not from a Marxist one. Zaretsky develops the distinction from the economy:
'The "split" between the socialised labour of the capitalist enterprise social division of tabour. (p29)
Marx, however, develops the real distinction of personal/social from political/ public from an entirely different basis. He derives it not from different parts of social and economic life but from the nature of the capitalist State and its relation to society. The distinction on which the system of particular Interests (the family and civil society) and the system of general interesta (the State). ('Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of contractual agreements, marriage, civil society appear in them as particular modes of existence alongside the political aspects of the State. (bid).
The nature of that split leads to the conclusion that political between two people in social terms is an exploitative relation of capitalist and workers, what in capitalist political terms is a tree their earthly existence in society' (Ibid), Zaretsky's whole framework on this is outside of the analysis of Marxism.
7. Furthermore, clashes by different types of criterla are not confined solely to relations between politics and other social spheres of life although here Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky's comments on such great writers, but political reactionaries, as Balzac, Goethe, etc. provide the basic framework of Marxist analysis of such problems. The decline of capitalism and its degeneration has given rise to innumerable phenomena which are very difficult to handle in practice. Thus, for example, Griffith's Birth of a Nation is an artistically Important fllm but Its subject, open glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, Is amongst the most despicable Imaginabie. Another classic case is that of the German philosopher Nietzsche, who was a political reactionary, proponent of extreme bourgeois Individualism, and an open advocate of sexiam, but who is also one of the greatest writers of German prose and poetry and whose ideas prefigured many of those of paychoanalysis and other modern psychological theories. These cases are merely extreme ones of the general problem of sexism, raciam and other positions which pervade class society and the dictatorship of the proletarlat emerging from It.
The way In which a society in transition to socialism and the party today deals with these types of clashes will have to be decided concretely in each case. It may wall be necessary to take strong actions on some criteria which go against those valld on others - thus, for example, no political or black organisation could seriously belleve that a showing of Gritfith's film could be considered a solely artistic event or a women's organisation that a presentation of Nietzache was purely a recital of German prose.
What is clear, howaver, Is that the different criteria which are Involved in judging events and works must not be mixed up. Thus, for example, to take an extreme case, It is obvious that a workers state engaged in a civil war against capitalist restoration could not simply freely permit the publishing of openly defeatist or pro-bourgeois literature under the guise that it was "purely artisitc activity. As Trotsky put it, 'the revolutionary state has the right to defend itself acainst the counter-attack of the bourgeoisie, even when this drapes Itself in the flag of art or science' (Towarda a Free Revolutionary Art'). Even In such extreme cases, however, the State, party, or other organisation must act on openly political or social grounds and not pseudo-artistic or literary ones. The concept of Chiang-Ching et al that a work of art must be bad in artistic terms if it is politically reactionary has nothing in common with Marxism.
8. Thus, forexample, the party demands of groupings within it that they are organised on a clear political basis and not that of friendship, personal ties, etc. - In other words, that they are tendencies and factions and not personal groupings and cliques. Furthermore, all activity in contradiction with the programme of the party evidently means exclusion from the party.
Internally, also, the party demands standards of behaviour which are necessary from the point of view of functioning of the party and which may well go beyond Its programme. These are, however, derived from Its political tasks and not from a position on social and personal questions.
In Lenin's words: "Yes, we recognise the duty of comradeship, the duty to support all comrades, the duty 1o tolerate the opinions of comrades...(but) the duty of comradeship derives from our duty to Russian and International Social-Democracy and not vice-versa. T'A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social Democracy').
Finally, in the interests of protecting the ability of the organisation to function politically. the primacy of politics may be asserted through having to ban varlous activities to which no serious Marxist can have any moral objection whatsoever. A classic example here is smoking pot. This is a perfectly harmless activity and revolutionaries demand Its legalisation. But as long as pot remains illegal, its smoking by members of a revolutionary organisation lays them open to legal blackmail by the police and the use of this against the party. For that reason pot smoking is banned by the revolutionary organisation.
Obviously in many cases the applying of these political criteria in practice, as with that of democratic centralism discussed below, is a complicated question. However the approach is clear — the position on the social and personal question is derived from the political starting point and not vice-versa ('the duty of comradeship derives from duty to communism and not vice-versa").
9. Even where Marxism as such may lead to, or be clalmed to lead to, a particular conclusion on a field such as art, social life, science or sexual relations, the political party is not the organisation to take a position, has no discipline, and should not attempt to organise the discussion within itself. The sole Intervention of the party in such fields is a political one - that the members of the party accept and base their activity on the necessity to achieve social liberation through the destruction of the state power of the capitalist class and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat where state power is directed towards overcoming the social bases of oppression and creating, in that sense, freedom of human choice. Naturally such questions do relate to and overlap political ones but they are not the same as them. A few examples may Illustrate the point.
In art it has frequently been clalmed that Marxism leads to support for realist trends - although almost as many people have denied this. Major and Important discussion, debate and even struggle can take place around such a question - as indeed did occur, for example, in the early years of the Russian Revolution, But the best place for such a discussion is within a body of Marxist or even non-Marxist artists and people concerned with art. The idea that the party is best equipped, or should decide or take a position, on such a question is absurd - and totally misunderstands Marxism. It Is only a Stalinist party, and not a revolutionary socialist one, which could demand that Lukacs made a self-criticism for 'bourgeois" trends in artistic theory, Shostakovitch for "Individualism' in music. poets for formalism' in their work, etc. Party members are free to take up a position for or against any artistic school they wish. Only If this art becomes intertwined Immediately with political consequences should the party take a position (e.g. if a member of the party utilises art to express reactionary political positions) and then it should be on the political Issue and not the artistic question.
In science a major debate has raged over various paychological theorles. Whether to support Freudianism, Pavlovianlam, a physiological or any other psychological approach is not an Issue for the party. Quite different, however, is the attempt to propagate, under the guise of science, the racist filth of the pseudo-geneticists of the Eysenck school. Here the party as such takes a position against reactionary politics masquerading as science and It is the duty of all psychologists, educationalists, etc. of the party to wage a struggle to expose these 'theorles' in social life, also, Marxist analysis will be applied to every question. To develop the concepts of life-style necessary for the Ilberation of women, the ending of prejudices against gays and all other issues involved in bullding a socialist society is going to take gigantic debate, work, and struggle. However there is not In the slightest a 100 per cent correlation between political correctness and positions on social life -for exampie, Marx maintained many bourgeois prejudices and some of Trotsky's pronouncements on sexual relations are nonsense. It is absolutely obvious that on such lssues and debates party members will take part in advocating and fighting for different social Inter-relations, sexual orientations, and so on. The types of discussions of Inessa Armand, Kollontal, Lenin and Trotsky will be merely pale procursore of the type of debate which is needed at present and in the future. However, the party is not at all the best organisation in which to debate out these Issues. On the contrary, party members should participate fully in much wider debates and struggles and take up positions on the contending sides just as anyone else does.
In short, the task of the party is to fight for the polltical basis to eilminate social oppression and create freedom of human choice — not to substitute itself for that choice or attempt to take declaions, or to wage struggles, which other types of organisation are far better qualified to work out and settle. When It comes to everyday practice in their soclal
[page 15]
life, party members are going to learn more from the women's and gay movements than from the party. When it comes to art, science or social life, heaven help anyone who waits for the pronouncements of even the most democratic party discussion rather than the work of artists, critics, scientists and women activists themselves. The claim to leadersnip or the party is based on the primacy of politics and relates to that field. It is only God and Stalinism which claim omnipotence and omniscience in every fleld of human life.
10. In relation to this we may note that the question of the discipline of a party Is a much misunderstood question in many social movements -a misunderstanding not helped by the sectarian concepts practised by some Marxist groups. It is frequently conceived that a revolutionary organisation determines what its members do on every question, and that all public disagreements and polemics are forbidden.
In reality, however, the discipline of the party has absolutely clear limits which flow from the political character of the party and the concept of democratic centralism. The idea that members of the party cannot discuss, debate, and disagree in public is quite false. Even on political questions the carrying out of majority decisions, and the putting in public of a common line, applies only to particular actions decided on by the party and not to views unconnected to such definitely decided acts. Lenin explained this principle clearly in reply to the Menshevik Central Committee of the RSDLP when the latter attempted to claim that public discussion was unacceptable. He stated: The principle of democratic centralism.. implies universal and full freedom to criticise [within the principles of the party programme - J.R.], so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action' (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p443). Outside of this, however, criticism of the party policy is not at all purely internal:
*Criticism within the limits of the principles of the party programme must be quite free..not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings...(But) the Party's political action must be united. No "calls" that violate the unity of definite actions can be tolerated either at a public meeting, or In Party meetings, or in the Party press...the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly. Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as In Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right whatever to call upon people to abstain from voting: nor can "criticism" of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in Bractice will sometimes give rise to decide me and but only on the basis principle can all disputes misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. (Ibid)
It flows Immediately from the character of democratic centralism that the party cannot have discipline on social life, artistic questions, science, etc. On these issues, as we have already discussed, the party will never take a position. It therefore never calls for definite actions and as such discussion is free. It cannot therefore have discipline.
11. An historical example may make this clearer. in the struggle against feudalism the necessity of concentrating all forces against the old regime led the bourgeoisie and Its allies to create and unite its forces around a single decisive political instrument to secure victory - the Jacobin Club in France and the New Model Army in England, for example. In the heat and at the height of the struggle all relative differentiation of the most Important and determined forces fighting feudalism was overcome in the necessity to defeat the common enemy. With the definitive routing of the old order, however, the differentiations within the bourgeoisie and Its allies came out into the open: Presbyterians, Puritans, Levellers, the Army, etc. in England following the crushing of the monarchy; Robespierrists, Hebertists, Dantonists, Thermidorlans, etc. In France after the defeat of the foreign invasions of 1793-94.
Of course, It is not possible to make any mechanical analogy between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution. Following the victory of the capitalist revolution a class political differentiation took place between the bourgeoisie and the proletarlat, embryo proletariat. peasantry and artisans, etc. Therefore the differentiations were not merely between different sections of the bourgeoisie (Robespierrists against Thermidorlans, Puritans against Presbyterians) but. a/30 between the bourgeoisle and embryonic developments of organisations of other classes (Babeufists, Levellers). Following the proletarian revolution these exploitative class differences will not exist. Differentiations between the proletariats of the ex-imperialist countries and the ex-colonial countries, between the proletariats of different nationalities within the same state, between the male section of the working class and the female, between the working class and those not yet integrated into It, between the working class and the peasantry, etc., are not of the same type as those between bourgeoisle and proletariat. It is a question of differences between historic allles and not between exploiters and explalted. Nevertheless, such unevennesses within the working ciass, and between It and other social layers, will take an entire historical epoch to disappear completely. In the period before this is finally achleved it is absolutely inevitable that differences both of objective immediate independent organisations of the masses (unions, women's movement, peasant organisations, national organisations, cultural societles, etc.).
It is thus quite false to belleve, as does classical Stalinist theory. that under the dictatorship of the proletariat the working class will only have one party. In the period of revolution Itself, theory and historical experience of revolution indicates it is overwhelmingly likely that the oppressed masses will unite in one single decisive instrument (although that leadership can only be won by correct line and not imposed as in Stalinist practice). Nevertheless, following the victory of the revolution, any serious Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that many different parties and fractions will develop reflecting political, social, nafional. regional, sexual and other differences and unevennesses within the working class. Furthermore, not merely differing political parties but every conceivable type of organisation of the masses will be needed in such a situation.
12. As the resolution of the Fourth International on Socialist Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (shortly to be published in Inprecor) puts it: Momentous struggles will continue throughout the process of building a classless society, struggles that concern social evils rooted in class society, but which will not disappear immediately with the suppression of capitalist exploitation or wage-labour. The oppression of women, the oppression of national minorities, and the oppression and allenation of youth are archetypes of such problems which cannot be automatically subsumed under the general heading of "class struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie" except by divorcing the categories "working clasa" and "bourgeoisie" from their classical Marxist, materialist definitions...Political freedom under workers democracy therefore imples freedom of organisation and action of independent women's liberation, national liberation and youth movements, i.e. movements much broader than the working class in the scientific sense of the word, not to speak of the revolutionary Marxist current within the working class.
13. Immense resources and mobilisation of the masses are needed to ensure that the struggle for women's liberation penetrates every sphere of life right down to every individual family. Bulldings, printing presses, journals, television facilities, medical resources, education materials, gigantic financial resources must all be under the control of an autonomous women's movement. Not even the wisest political party in the entire world could substitute for that process. The mightiest women's liberation movement in the entire world should exist today in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China. It is one of the ultimate condemnations of Stalinism and the bureaucracy that instead this movement is suppressed and is weaker even than in capitalist countries which by their very nature must organise their material resources not for but against the liberation of women.
14. This Is not merely phrasemongering. The eilmination of bureaucracy, the arming of the whole working class as long as arms are necessary, the cutting of the wages of state officials and all the other parts of the Marxist programme which Stalinism is so keen on forgetting are in reality merely the practical means whereby to move towards the goal of the withering away of the State.
15. As with the State this is not a matter of mere words. The concept that the whole structure of democratic centralism and party organisation needed to wage struggles on social organisation, есопотіс construction, the raising of children, etc. Is ridiculous. The concept of a 'democratic centralist economic organisation, a democratic centralist. scientific society, a democratic centralist cultural organisation, etc. is absurd. As the bourgeoisie is definitively defeated even political questions will decreasingly need the old type of party form for example, such positions as a multinational party in one state, as in Russia following 1917, must be reconsidered The types of organisation necessary to carry out the social struggles of the phase of society following the international defeat of capitalism and the final phase of transition to socialist soclety bear no relation whatever to the party in the Marxist and Leninist sense. From a mighty instrument of political struggle and power the party will become progressively less significant than any othertool of social organisation.
16. Even before the destruction of capitalism, however, people will not find the overcoming of their oppression purely in politics but in their fullest participation in every social struggle. To develop human beings even to the highest potential that can be achieved without the construction of socialism means not the confining of their activity to politics but their integration and participation In the movement, trade unions, historical, cultural, scientific and every other form of activity. Marxism achieves Its goals not in opposition to these struggles but in showing them the poiltical means whereby their alms Bullding a revolutionary party and to regard it as one of the greatest da ye be realised. To devote their activities, energles and lives to society.
17. As an aside we may note that in fact Zaretsky's problematic, which Is that of counterposing to the economic not the primacy of the political but instead the necessity for a wider soclal framework, is in reality not a break with but a classic statement of Economism. The famous Credo of the original Russian Economists put it in a way that could almost be a quotation from Zaretsky's book: "Intolerant Marcism, negative Marxiam, primitive Marxiam (whose conception of the class division of soclety is too schematic) will give way to democratic Marxiam, and the social position of the party within modern society must undergo a sharp change...The concept "polltics" will be enlarged and will acquire a truly social meaning.' The theoretical counterposition to Economism is not that of asserting more social Issues - that is to remain in the framework of Economism - but to assert politica. Once that Is done, however, then the limits of the party must also be drawn. In Trotsky's words: 'Our standard is, clearly, polltical, Imperative and intolerant. But for this very reason, It must define the limits of its activity clearly (Literature and Revolution).
[page 16]
Socialist Woman - in conjunction with others - helped to organise a highly successful tour in Britain for Evelyn Reed, author of Women's Evolution. She spoke st meetings throughout the country, including several in London. The importance of these meetings was the debate which was stimulated and the discussion which developed around issues which are of central concern to Marxists and feminists — namely, the material basis of women's oppression and the role of anthropology in developing a correct analysis.
Below we print two contributions to this debate. The first is a reply to Olivia Harris's article in the iatest Red Rag (No. 12). The second is an article reprinted from Critique Communiste, theoretical journal of the LCR (French section of the Fourth International). We hope these contributions will in turn stimulate further debate in future issues of Socialist Woman.
----- pull-quotes -----
and the private labour of women In the home is closely related to a second "split" - between our "personal" lives and our place within the
public private split is based lies not in the division between socialised and non-socialised labour but between the life of the capitalist State and the real nature of capitalist civil society. Thus Marx distinguishes The
the State'). The split is that: "The political man leads his particular existence alongside the unpolitical man, the private citizen. Property.
"liberation' is not at all sufficient to guarantee real social and human freedom. What, in relation to the political State, may be a 'free contract
decision of equal partners' in marriage is in reality an oppressive social relationship of the family. As Marx put it: Just as Christians are equal in heaven although unequal on earth, the individual members of the people become equal in the heaven of their political world, though unequal in
Interests and in degrees of political conaciousness will exist. These will Inevitably give rise to different parties, the necessity of many different
in the history of humanity when that party shuts up shop for ever is not a contradiction for Marxists but merely the real unfolding of the struggle of