[page 9]
Having shown that politics is the decisive element of Marxist principles and practice, we then have to ask 'what is politics? — and what do we mean, if anything, by the politics of the personal"? Politics, in the sense used by Marx, does not at all mean everything worth talking about — as Zaretsky seems to suppose. On the contrary, it has a very specific meaning.
As Marx put it, 'the fact that a question is political means that it exists in relation to the different powers of the political State' ('Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the State'); or, in Lenin's classic formulation, politics is participation in the affairs of the State, directing the State, determining the forms, tasks and contents of the State's activities' (On the Question of the Role of the State'). Thus, for example, Marx explains the difference between a political and an economic struggle perfectly as follows: *The attempt in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to force a shorter working day out of individual capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand, the movement to force through an eight hour day, etc. law is a political movement' (Marx to Bolte, 23 November 1871).* Of course, it does not follow that, because a question is specifically political, it is therefore not important. No Marxist, for instance, has ever dreamt that the economic struggle for wages is insignificant — on the contrary, the general accusation is that they are too concerned with it. From the general dominance of politics, it does not flow that everywhere and at all times specifically political issues are more important than economic or social ones." But as a general historical truth and long-term statement, politics dominates over other issues from the point of view of Marxist practice. Above all, the economic struggle of classes can only be finally resolved at a political level - through the destruction of the bourgeois State and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
What applies to economic issues applies to every social question in relation to politics. The entire period leading to and following Increased postal charges mean that we have had to raise the subscription cost. But they are still exceptional value. Domestic: 6 months, £3.75; 12 months £7.50 Abroad: Airmail, £12.50. Surface, E9 per annum.
Name...
Address.
I enclose a donation for the Fighting Fund of..
Cheques, POs and Money Orders should be made payable to 'Socialist Challenge'.
Complete and return to:
Socialist Challenge, 328/9 Upper Street, London N1.
[page 10]
(personal) / political but individual/ social. Only if they are questions impinging on the State do they become specifically political as opposed to social." Marxism, as a study of social relations, needs to have an analysis of all such questions; but that does not make them automatically and specifically political.
Now what many theorists of sexual politics assert is the equality - or even dominance — of the social with the political in the class struggle. For Zaretsky there are two (seemingly equal in emphasis) sides to a socialist programme: on one side the *self-transformation of social relations*; on the other the struggle against the State and the capitalist class' (pp 139-40). Feminists who 'leave in abeyance the problem of developing a programme that men and women could institute by themselves, and instead make direct demands on the State', tend to be reformist (p 139). He therefore ignores the fact that making demands on the State (over issues where the State holds the key to satisfaction of these demands) is one of the ways which leads them to the political level. Abortion is an excellent example of an issue which, from appearing very "private" and "individual", has become "social' — a matter of concern to the community -then political, by raising demands on the State or opposing State restrictions. Throughout, abortion was equally important to the women who needed it; but abortion openly became part of the class struggle as a political issue. In this case, the struggle against the State lays the preconditions for women to take control of their own fertility.
Part of the problem is that Zaretsky is confusing the ends and means of Marxism. Certainly, Marxism asserts that the ends must determine the means. But it does not follow that the ends are the same as the means. On the contrary, Marxism - seen from an individual and not social-historical point of view — can even utilise a means which is in apparent contradiction with an end, in order to attain it. So, for example, Marxism stands for the withering away of the State, but the actual wielding of state power is the only means whereby this goal can be achieved. Marxists oppose killing but they are of necessity prepared to meet the violence of the capitalist class with the violence of the proletariat. From the goals and ends of Marxism it is not possible to derive mechanically the means — or, put in more general terms, from an abstract truth it is not possible to derive mechanically a concrete truth.
The Party It is from this fundamentally anti-Marxist starting point that Zaretsky and other writers who hold similar views on sexual politics develop ane anti-Leninist position on the party. It is well-known that Marxism and Leninism assert the necessity and "leading role' of the party (although many people attribute this emphasis on the party solely to Lenin and define themselves as *Marxist but anti-Leninist'). Confronted with such horrific examples as the Stalinist parties in Eastern Europe, with their claim to arbitrate everything from economic planning to people's sexual relations, such antipathy is not surprising. However, while understandable, such opposition flows from a radical misunderstanding of what a Marxist political party is and the way in which Stalinist parties break from that conception and practice The only really coherent opposition to the party comes from those who consider that the entire revolutionary process can develop spontaneously with no leadership or organisation. However, to be consistent, such people would have to deny not merely the necessity of the party but also of the women's movement, the gay movement, the trade unions, etc. In reality, of course, few people believe in such spontaneism. The most frequent opposition is not to organisation or leadership as such but specifically to the party form of organisation.
This latter type of opposition, however, is not in reality an argument about the party at all, but about the primacy of politics. Once it is accepted that organisation is needed to wage any struggle, then opposition to party organisation can only flow from one of two positions: either that the political struggle is unnecessary or at least not central — in which case organisations based on economic (trade unions) and social criteria (women's movement, gay movement, etc.) are sufficient — or that it should be the trade unions, women's movement, the gay movement, etc. which should lead the political struggle.
Neither of these arguments can be sustained. Anarchists of course can reject the primacy of politics and therefore logically reject the party. However, the reality of capitalist society is quite different from their conceptions. As we have already discussed, the ending of the economic relations of exploitation and the social relations of oppression cannot be achieved except through the destruction of the capitalist State which defends them. Anarchism may wish to forget politics but unfortunately politics intrudes itself centrally into every social struggle. Every great social question can be carried to victory only through the destruction of the capitalist State. The necessity of political struggle is posed not by schemas of Marxists but by the reality of capitalist society.
As for the concept that it should be the unions, the women's movement, etc. which can organise and lead the general political struggles, and that a party is unnecessary, this leads to disastrous conclusions in practice. Just as the women's movement has to be organised to fight for definite demands in order to struggle for women's liberation, so also an organisation to wage a general political struggle has to be based on a clear and definite programme.
But the women's movement and unions are not and cannot be organised on the basis of agreement on the political struggle to destroy the bourgeoisic — the women's movement and the unions must include those who stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat and those who oppose it, those who believe it right to meet the violence of the capitalist class with the violence of the working class and those who reject violence in any form, those who stand for reform and those who stand for revolution. Such organisations cannot lead the political struggle against the ruling class.
Many different organisations are needed in the struggle against capitalism. No Marxist can deny the necessity of trade unions, the women's movement, the gay movement, black organisations, etc. to wage that struggle. But only those who deny the centrality of politics, or even its reality, can affirm the need for these other organisations and deny the need for a party.
Limits And Organisation Of The Party If, however, Marxism asserts the primacy of politics and therefore the necessity of the construction of the revolutionary party, then also the clear limits of that party flow from the very same bases as its necessity. Membership, recruitment, and organisation of the party are based on political criteria. In that political realm, and insofar as other struggles intersect and affect politics, this organisation and concentration make the party a powerful and even unrivalled instrument. Not merely in the construction of soviets and the insurrection, but in how to fight bourgeois attacks on the unions, how to fight abortion laws, how to marshal the working class and oppressed minorities against fascist attacks, and in every similar struggle, a revolutionary party is organised to act and believes that its conceptions and education will make its militants among the best and most determined fighters. It does not and cannot attempt to gain leadership through assertion, domination and organisational manipulation (that is a self-defeating Stalinist practice), but the party does think that it can earn support for its positions precisely because in this epoch it is the political struggle which decides all else.
But the moment the party steps away from politics in the strict and specific sense it is entering an arena in which it is not in the slightest automatic, or even likely, that it is the best judge. It is absolutely ridiculous to conceive, for example, that an organisation based, educated, and developed on a programme of the dictatorship of the proletariat and transition to socialism should bethe best judge of scientific theories, the best authority on art, on how to develop the best social life, etc. The concept that the party is the arbiter of all fields of activity from art, to science, to farming, on how to raise children has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism. It is Stalinism, not revolutionary Marxism, which asserts that the party should determine such questions. It is Stalinism (as, for example, practised by Chiang Ching in China) which condemns art (regardless of its merit) because it is reactionary', and uses the party to enforce a uniformity of culture in the 'service! of the revolution. All that the primacy of politics asserts in this domain is that if there is an absolute contradiction between the needs of politics and of some other sphere then politics is dominant.?
Finally, this limitation of the area of a party's role also determines the organisation and discussion held within it — the two together because, for a party, discussion is not held for its own sake but in order to decide. Thus the membership of the partyisonly open to those who agree with the task of the establishment of the political power of the working class and the means necessary to achieve this - principles established by the programme of the party. Within that
[page 11]
framework it demands of party members that they carry out the democratically decided decisions of the organisation on how to fight for this programme. All the party sother organisational forms - for example, its internal groupings of political tendencies or factions and not of industries or sexes — are specifically designed to maintain the primacy of politics.
But outside of that political programme and area wherethe partyis called upon to decide and take a position, the situation is totally different." A party demands as a basis of membership and activity total opposition to laws against gays and for the use, where necessary, of the organisations of the working class and oppressed, and finally of the State power of the dictatorship of the proletariat, against oppression suffered by gays. But the party cannot have a position "directing" its individual members towards or against pursuing a homosexual sexual orientation. The debate on sexual orientations and social relations is an important one. It needs journals, discussions, organisations and struggles. But the party will not take a position. And as always, outside of that area in which the party takes a position, the discussion should be held as a non-party discussion, involving non-party people, and held in a non-party form.!"
The Party And The Women's Movement From the nature and limits of the party also flows its relations to the women's movement, to the gay movement, and to every mass organisation of the exploited and oppressed. Marxism asserts the necessity of a vast range of different organisations of the oppressed and exploited to wage the struggle against capitalism. A Marxist party, far from (as is sometimes supposed) trying to "take over' the women's movement, stresses on the contrary the necessity of the distinction and organisational independence of the women's movement and the party, the trade unions and the party, the gay movement and the party, etc. A party, byitsnature, can only include those who agree with its full political programme. The strength of the women's movement, however, is based on the fact that it includes all women prepared to fight for its demands regardless of whether they are Marxists, humanists, libertarians, belong to unions, don't belong to unions, etc. If the women's movement did organise to attempt to lead the general political struggle, which would mean making the basis of membership a whole series of positions in favour of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, soviets, etc, it would totally split and divide its forces just as would the trade unions if they organised on such a political basis. On the other hand, if the party attempted itself to organise directly the mass struggle of women this would be equally disastrous. The party would either have to recruit to its ranks those who totally disagreed with its political aims, which would totally defeat the purpose of the party, or it would in practice (whether formally or not) only include in its front organisations those women who agreed with its political programme — thus dividing those fighting for women's liberation and disastrously weakening the women's movement. No more than it favours 'red unions' can the political party attempt to control organisationally or 'take over' the women's movement. If its members gain positions of leadership or influence within the movement, it must be because of their own merits and because the policies they have pursued, including those of the party, haveearned the respect and agreement of women. But this must be achieved on the basis of the total organisational independence of the women's movement — its decisions on its own structure, its decision of whether it wants a leadership or not, and if so, how it selects it, the total independence of its own journals, and so on. A party, and party members, can attempt to persuade or urge a course of action on the women's movement or a union, but they must never be in a position to impose anything.
The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat Even where it is understood that Marxism supports the autonomy of the women's movement from the party in capitalist society (and after all, there isn't any way it can actually subordinate the women's movement in such a society!), it is nevertheless still felt by some people, particularly those who consider themselves libertarians, that Marxists and Leninists consider that the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat will eliminate the necessity for the independence of the women's movement in a workers state. Such a view has been fostered by looking at Eastern Europe and China, where indeed any moves towards autonomous women's organisations have been prevented and where the bureaucracy denies even in theory the necessity of such a movement. However, such a conception among feminists is again based on a misunderstanding of the difference