18.04.2013
CPGB aggregate: Debating feminism
Michael Copestake reports on Aprils members aggregate
It was only appropriate, given the recent debate generated by the Weekly Worker around the question of feminism, both in its pages and elsewhere, that the first session of the CPGB aggregate should be on that subject, with comrade Yassamine Mather giving us her take, as outlined in this week’s paper (see pp4-5). Prefacing her comments with the proviso that she did not consider herself an expert on the subject, she nonetheless provided comrades with a wide-ranging talk.
A lively debate followed, with some comrades questioning the basis of women’s supposed greater susceptibility to commodity fetishism and the risk of exaggerating the “beauty myth”. Sarah McDonald commented that in all societies through history people have enjoyed making themselves look good, dressing up, using make-up, body paint and so on. The comrade also stated that, from her personal experience, the left is a substantially less sexist place than wider society and any problems the left has must be understood within this context.
For Mike Macnair the left is effectively in a trap, and not just on the questions facing women, because it does not think about the minimum-maximum programme. He clarified that what he meant by this is that a lot of the demands put forward by bourgeois feminisms are fine - equal pay, access to the professions, women MPs, etc. But our demands necessarily diverge from them after this point. On the importance of class, as opposed to sex, comrade Macnair noted that the differences in pay between rich and poor women were greater than the differences in pay between men and women, as substantially more women work in part-time and low-paid work than men. In this regard he noted that the Socialist Workers Party’s conception of the working class is restricted to those in employment, and thus SWP politics boils down to syndicalism and strike fetishism. Like many left groups, the SWP has little serious to say not only on the women’s question, but on questions of cooperatives, mutuals, democracy and so on, as they are not immediately related to workplace struggles.
Taking a harder line against ‘left feminisms’, John Bridge stated that in the case of Marxist feminism, for example, the ‘Marxist’ part of the phrase was more often than not very weak or absent altogether. He agreed with the point made by comrade Mather, that this did not mean that what came out of Marxist feminist milieu in the 1970s was of no value, but that we must properly interrogate its weaknesses.
On the subject of the early so-called ‘Marxist feminists’, Engels, Zetkin and Kollontai, he commented that they defined themselves very explicitly against the feminism of their day. In fact the tag, ‘Marxist feminist’, basically implies that Marxism as such is not capable of dealing with questions of women’s liberation.
On comrade Mather’s point about women’s lack of confidence due to the sexist society, he added that there is also a class element operating here, offering up his own history as “one of the thickos” in school, who were most definitely not encouraged to speak up and develop themselves intellectually or in terms of confidence. This would be true for many boys as well as girls in state schools - as compared to those at the ruling class’s top public schools, where students are encouraged to be outspoken.
Ben Lewis found it interesting that the common ground held by both Alexandra Kollontai and Margaret Thatcher was they both hated feminism and were both hated by feminists. He stated that the bureaucratised feminisms that we have today have the effect of splintering our movement. To see this in practice, he went on, one only needs to look at the National Union of Students, where there are all kinds of ‘caucuses’ trying to play the oppression “trump card” in sectional ways.
However, Tina Becker asked whether or not caucuses actually provided a coherent space for people who share a common concern to work together so that they can play a positive role around a particular issue, though she agreed that a “permanent caucus” did risk developing a sectional attitude. She agreed with the articles in the Weekly Worker that ‘safe spaces’ was an utterly meaningless phrase and was a gift to the bureaucracy.
Coming back on the subject of caucuses, comrade Macnair explained his view that they are not problematic as such unless they become institutionalised and start expressing the idea that only the oppressed can speak for their specific oppression, which plays into “veto culture”. You must make the practical distinction between a caucus of women in the party, for example, and the conduct of the fraction work on women’s issues - the latter must include men and be regarded as the property of the party as a whole.
For Maciej Zurowski the various feminisms, and the word itself, are so fragmented that the feminists and their critics cannot but end up talking at cross purposes. The feminism on the left today is mostly made up of fragmented, half-remembered, odds and sods from the legacy of decades ago, or else it is just general anti-sexist sentiment along the lines that we must fight for equality as far as we can do so under capitalism.
Responding to the debate, Yassamine asserted that the CPGB has made a tactical mistake in our approach, in that we have tended to appear as a main critic of feminism as such. It would be more productive for us to focus instead on attacking the dominant and bourgeois trends, particularly “neoliberal feminism”.
Also on the agenda was a discussion on the SWP crisis. John Bridge gave an extensive recap of the events of the past few months. Along the way he noted that the spark of the rebellion was not the political-democratic outrage over the expulsion of the Facebook Four, which saw delegates to the March special conference line up in favour of expulsion (even the In Defence of Our Party faction effectively dropped the issue), but the allegations of rape against ‘comrade Delta’. However, that opened up the whole question of SWP democracy and accountability.
Comrade Bridge noted that the central committee had no need to go for mass expulsions - unfortunately the comrades who went on to form the International Socialist Network decided to leave of their own accord. Not that the leadership had tried to win the political battle. No, Alex Callinicos attacked all manner of cardboard cut-out opponents, such as Owen Jones, rather than face up to the ideas of comrades Seymour, Miéville, Davidson, Birchall et al. He also noted that the internal struggle had given us a more accurate idea of the SWP’s real membership - the leadership could only muster just over 600 comrades to support its statement, while IDOP managed to sign up 500. But the CC had succeeded in gerrymandering the conference so that this narrow divide was translated into an overwhelming majority of delegates.
The whole method of the leadership reinforced the left’s logic of splitting - it was baldly stated that comrades who disagree with “the party” would be better off leaving, which is what the ISN had done.
Nevertheless, comrade Bridge commented on the partyist statements coming from some comrades in the ISN and forward the text of a letter to the group, proposing discussions. This was unanimously approved following minor amendments (see below). Comrade Bridge warned that, unless the ISN bases its politics firmly on Marxism, it risks rapidly falling apart, now that the common enemy which previously united it is no longer there. Necessarily the wide differences that exist in the group will have to be confronted - it cannot be said that the ISN has emerged from the SWP with any particular unifying politics.
Comrade Bridge also expressed concern that the experience of ISN comrades at the hands of the CC could lead to negative conclusions about leadership as such and he hoped that the ISN as a whole would arrive at definite pro-partyist conclusions. He ended by stressing that we should reach out and try to engage the group positively, but, as always, in a level-headed and critical fashion.
Message to ISN
Dear comrades
We have followed your struggle in the Socialist Workers Party with the greatest of interest and sympathy. You have been through a very painful experience with the SWP’s bureaucratic centralism. Your rebellion took courage and was well fought. Of course, you could never win a conference vote - the apparatus was always going to lie, gerrymander and restrict debate to the barest minimum.
The SWP’s crisis is part and parcel of a wider crisis of the left. It shows that the days of the confessional sects need to come to an end. But there is a negative side to the SWP crisis. The SWP leadership handled allegations of rape in an appalling and ham-fisted fashion and its behaviour has brought discredit on the left as a whole.
Many of you have been committed SWP members for years and it is natural to express your loyalty to the International Socialist tradition. That tradition need interrogating, of course. But it is vital not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are encouraged by statements from ISN comrades about their commitment to internationalism, the building a revolutionary Communist Party and the political independence of the working class.
We very much hope that your first national meeting was a success. You have much to discuss and obviously it will take some considerable time for your organisation to get its bearings.
Objective circumstances cry out for a viable socialist alternative. The fight for a mass Communist Party, organised along the lines of the pre-1917 Bolsheviks and solidly based on a Marxist programme, is vital. This is only possible if we agree to operate on the basis of genuine democratic centralism - unity in action, freedom of criticism. There must also be the right to form factions and where appropriate to openly criticise majority positions.
We would like to invite your elected committee to begin exploratory discussions with our Provisional Central Committee at the earliest opportunity. We would also urge your organisation to take up the invitation to speak at this year’s Communist University in August.
In solidarity
April 13 CPGB aggregate