Socialist Studies
|
|
|
Women and
Socialism
Preface
This
pamphlet was first published in December 1995. A second reprint coincided
with the election of the Labour government in May 1997 and we are
now publishing a third edition in a period where both male and female
workers are being made unemployed to which the Labour government has
been ineffectual to prevent.
Labour's
promises offer little to working class women because the problems
they suffer as workers remain. Even if Labour succeed in achieving
their promises the class divisions between capitalists who own the
means of production and the working class who have to sell their ability
to work in order to exist will still exist.
In
a class divided society, Labour - like any other government - cannot
provide working class women with the same security and comfort that
is available to women and men of the capitalist class. Labour exists
to serve the interests of British capitalism not the interests of
all society.
|
When
Labour refers to "minimum wages", "private
and state schools", "benefits", and "business
men and women and the pensioner on a council estate" they
explicitly accept the class division of society. They do not exist
to abolish class divisions, minority monopoly of social wealth production
and the imposition of Capitalism in our lives.
The
Labour government may set a minimum wage, but in the past workers
in such schemes have accepted lower wages in order to keep jobs. The
capitalist class also cannot pay the minimum wage if the market does
not permit it. Moreover, many employers now employ women only on a
part-time basis (thus evading payment of National Insurance contributions).
It is doubtful if a minimum wage will apply in these circumstances,
at whatever level it is set. And a minimum wage, set at a level acceptable
to employers, will inevitably be a poverty wage.
Every
time that Labour has formed the government and served its time in
political power, the number of unemployed has increased by the time
it has been voted out agin. This does not promise much for the "one
million single mothers trapped on benefits" which apparently
includes the "many women who want to work". And we
are told that "one in five non-pensioner families has no one
working".
When
you know that the capitalist class wants everyone working because
employment would provide surplus value, the surplus wealth above that
necessary to cover wages, then you will realise that capitalist governments,
including Labour, do not want unemployment. And what does surplus
value mean? It means profit for the capitalist. Surplus value is the
source of the unearned income of rent, interest and industrial profit,
and so provides new capital for the continued exploitation of the
working class.
Why
have past Labour, Liberal and Conservative governments done nothing
about unemployment? Briefly, they cannot do a thing. If the market
for commodities declines and the workers are unable to produce surplus
value, and specifically, they cannot produce the value of their own
wages or salaries, then they are laid off. So unemployment of both
women and male workers is endemic to capitalism. Further, if unemployment
becomes low and wages rise in consequence, the capitalists either
import workers from abroad or invest in labour saving machinery. A
reserve army of unemployed is necessary to capitalism.
When
the National Health Service was established in 1948 it was going to
provide an adequate health service from the "womb to the tomb".
It was going to be freely available. The offer of "helping
the thousands of women waiting for breast cancer treatment"
is as spurious as the original offer of a "free"
health service. How right we were to publish the pamphlet BEVERIDGE
REORGANISES POVERTY in 1943. Do you think that the capitalist class
with all their wealth will be unable to jump the queue and obtain
preferential and better health treatment?
Some
other traumas and problems mentioned by Labour in their manifesto
as going to be dealt with are "rape and serious sexual offences",
"pension splitting between men and women on divorce"
and help to build "strong families". These promises
highlight how unpleasant capitalist society is for women and men.
There is no security and comfort. Social relationships are blighted
under pressures of competition and having to live on a wage. Sexual
relations and sexuality are distorted, trivialised and brutalised
by a system which turns everything into commodoties to be bought and
sold and where advertising creates an imagery of instant gratification
and disposability. Families under capitalism are part and parcel of
capitalist society. Workers' family relationships are distorted and
often destroyed by the pressures of capitalism. governments - Labour
or Tory -can do precious little about this.
We
have quoted extensively from Labour's manifesto NEW LABOUR - BECAUSE
BRITAIN DESERVES BETTER. Like all manifestos published by capitalist
political parties it was designed to get your vote. Once elected you
will be forgotten and Labour will get down to the business of administering
British capitalism in the interests of the British capitalist class.
The only solution for working class women and men, is, as our pamphlet
argues, the establishment of Socialism.
We
have received one criticism of the pamphlet from a member of a political
party in Clapham calling itself the Socialist Party, one of three
parties of that name in this country. We have dealt with the criticism
in SOIALIST STUDIES NO 22. The Clapham sect has embraced feminism
just as that political reform movement eclipsed. A similar fate befell
its support of Solidarity who then went on to form a ruthless anti-working
class government. Its flirtation with anarchists has seen it drift
to the very extremity of politics. It has gained nothing but a falling
and increasingly apathetic membership. SPGB remains hostile to the anti-socialist and anti-working class
ideas found within feminine discourse. You cannot become a member
of SPGB while simultaneously belonging to a feminist organisation.
Women workers are now finding out that female capitalists are just
as ruthless, exploitative and competitive as their male counterparts.
SPGB does not court fashionable causes
in the misguided belief that it will increase the membership of the
party. A political party working for the establishment of Socialism
and working class emancipation must represent only the interests of
the entire working class. It cannot and must not take up the sectional
interests of different groups of the working class. SPGB works
for class unity on the basis of shared class interests as a matter
of principle.
We
ask you to read our pamphlet. if you agree or disagree let us know.
If you are thinking of joining then you will be seeking membership
from a party which has never discriminated along lines of race, sex,
or age. We have only asked of applicants that they, understand, accept,
defend and agree with the OBJECT AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES: a
clear statement of what we mean by Socialism, why we know that it
is necessary and how we think it can best be achieved.
Back to top
Introduction
The
purpose of this pamphlet is to state the socialist arguement in regard
to the situation of working class women in capitalist society. It
should be noted that to be working class a person has to be dependant
upon the sale of the power to work, or to be dependant on another's
ability to command a wage or salary in order to live. Thus today a
working class woman, in order to live, must be able to sell her own
labour power or to have a partner who supports her who is also dependant
on the sale of labour power. A minority of women live on the proceeds
of capital. The capitalist, someone who owns enough capital to be
able to live well of the proceeds and does not need to sell his or
her labour power, will only pay the workers: children, women and men,
the rate determined by the market. Their standing in society is related
to their ownership of wealth, NOT to their sex.
It
cannot be denied that the majority of women in British society are
in a position of inequality which results in discrimination against
them. This discrimination has taken many forms: at work, in the family,
the home and society generally. In this pamphlet we hope to show that
this oppression is due to being members of the working class, and
not to being female. From the moment of their birth, capitalist society
attempts to mould all children to meet its needs: working class girls
as mothers, housewives and up to recently a reserve of labour. In
the late 20th century women constitute some fifty percent of the labour
force in Britain.
All
societies train their juvenile members to act to maintain that society.
today most people accept capitalism and have no desire to abolish
it. however all class societies have problems which lead to fundamental
change and revolution. Human society has experienced several revolutions
which have changed the position of women in society and in consequence
have changed the nature of their lives. The situation of women today
is the outcome of history.
Back to top
Women
and Earlier Societies
Before
considering women today, a review of the past will show that the lives
of women are directly related to how the available resources are organised.
The
earliest form of society was based on hunting and gathering for food,
such as has been reported to be the way of life of a primitive tribe
recently discovered in the Amazon forests. In this society men hunt
the larger animals, the women and children gather smaller animals
and plants. This division of labour reflects physical attributes,
the strength of men being necessary for the hunt; the rearing ansd
nurturing of children keeping women near the home base to prepare
food and make clothes. This division is not one of inequality, but
actually a division of responsibility.
The
development of the domestication of animals and settled agriculture
through the use of the plough and other tools, fertilisation and irrigation
made the sexual division of labour even more rigid. As the food supply
became more assured, because the hostility of the environment was
being overcome, the population increased.
The
increased population and demand for resources often lead to tribal
conflict and war. In time prisoners were taken in wars to become slaves,
and many female slaves became concubines. Slaves and concubines were
one of the earliest forms of property. It is the establishment of
the institution of private property that marks the establishment of
class based society. Further, the subjugation of women did not come
about to any great extent until the ownership of property became significant.
With the development of property based society, instituted on a governmental
basis, exchange, trade and law developed, as did divorce law.
In
the earlier slave civilisations, Babylonia and Egypt, the position
of women has been said to be quite good. This was probably due to
being closer in time to the more egalitarian primative society. It
was undoubtedly true of upper class women, but for lower class womwn,
and slaves, it was a life of deprivation and hardship, working on
the land or as domestic servants.
As
in all property based societies, the situation for women varies according
to which class a woman is in. In medieval society, women in an upper
class, eg the aristocracy, were undoubtedly in a better situation
than men and women in a lower class, eg a serf. the church and the
aristocracy combined to establish the idea of women's inferiority.
Upper class women were inferior to men of the same class because of
the men's holdings in land. Upper class marriage was a feudal arrangement
- to establish an increase of power through the holding of land. Nevertheles,
a woman holding land was a person of importance: she could make contracts,
write a will, sue or be sued. When she became a wife her land passed
to her husband, and by canon law, if she were disobedient, her husband
could "correct" her by force.
Lower
class women were part of the general labour force on the land, working
to sustain the church and aristocracy. In the towns, if married, they
provided a wage for the family, on their own and single they had to
earn a living. Many were assistants to their craftsman husband or
father. On their own account they worked in spinning (hence spinster),
brewing and baking. Surplus women in the upper class went into the
nunneries; in the lower classes they experienced hard labouring work
on the land or were cheap labour in the towns. The exploitation of
cheap child labour was not an invention od capitalism and the industrial
revolution.
Working
women on the land had greater equality with men of their own class
than other women within the class. But it was an equality shared with
the men who had a life of virtually nothing but hard work. They had
the possibility of marriage to a serf or in the later times to a peasant,
bringing almost no change.
There
is considerable evidence that from Saxon times to the early years
of capitalism - into the 18th and 19th centuries, the position of
women in society was considerably eroded. For the lower class women,
hard work on the land was giving way to a life of wage slavery in
the factories and down the pits. it was work for long hours, in foul,
insanitary, and often dangerous conditions. Workers on the land generally
were being forced off and into the cities to seek whatever employment
was available. The formation of the working class was in process and
this included women.
There
is some evidence that up to the 19th century, there was no improvement
in the position of women, when they are considered in relation to
their own menfolk and the men and women of the capitalist class.
Back to top
Developments
Within Capitalism
In
1842 work in the mines underground for boys under 10 years of age
and women was forbidden by law. In the latter part of the century
the Factory Act regulations slowly improved the working conditions
for men, women and children. It must be remembered that although laws
were passed, it took years for them to be seriously enforced, and
only then because it was recognised that laws like the Factories Acts
were in the general interest of the capitalist class. The upper class
women remained subservient to her husband - a position buttressed
by law until later in the century. The Married Women's Property Act
in 1882 granted women rights to property secured before and after
marriage . From then onwards technological developments and such events
as the two world wars have widened the opportunities open to women,
and so broadened the lives of women. But it has not meant freedom.
Prior
to World War I, domestic service and factory work were the main occupations
open to women. After the war, even though thousands of men did not
return, the high unemployment meant a retreat for women from many
occupations. World War II brought women into the factories again and
into the military forces. Since this war, the outstanding feature
has been the increase in office work and in the service industries.
together with this development has been the increasing number of women
entering the universities and the professions.
Capitalism
exploits the working class regardless of sex. A woman who does equal
work with a man must on average, require the same amount of the necessities
of life. it does not follow however that the employer will pay her
a wage that will make such a provision.
The
growth of mechanical power has widened the work opportunities for
women. The result is that women are taking positions that capitalism
assigns for them. Capitalism has made it necessary for women to take
their place as part of the industrial army. That and economic necessity
has driven women out of the home and into the workshop with the consequent
reaction on the wage status of men. Further it has been the inability
of women to find employment at wages sufficient to keep them and their
children, that has driven many of them into prostitution.
This
position of inequality and discrimination has led women to establish
organisations specifically designed to remedy their situation. Such
organisations inevitably turn out to be reformist.
Getting
the vote, once claimed as the panacea for women's woes, was not the
remedy - as SPGB pointed out at the
time. The Suffragettes movement was a capitalist movement of propertied
women seeking the franchise. They were opposed by SPGB at the
time. During World War I the Suffragettes suspended their activity
and became a strike breaking organisation and a recruiting sergeant
for the armed forces, as well as handing out white feathers to those
not in uniform. They did not achieve the franchise, which was extended
to women over 30 in 1918. Women's reform movements over the years
have achieved very little, being almost totally dependant on the women's
sections within the major capitalist political parties.
Suggestions
that women in power would solve the world's problems have many times
been shown to be false. Women leaders of capitalism have no more idea
of how to control the economic and political forces of capitalism
than have the men.
Back to top
Reforms,
Women's Liberation & SPGB
SPGB opposition to all reform movements arises from our hostility
to all parties of capitalism; Tory, Labour, Liberal, Democrat, Communist
etc. These parties exist to administer capitalism and seek working
class electoral support on the basis of an endless variety of programmes
of reforms. All reform programmes have the problems of capitalism
in mind and their purpose is to make capitalism run more smoothly
and efficiently but always in the interests of the capitalists. Capitalism,
during the normal course of its operations, constantly throws up the
problems which give rise to the need for reforms. The SOLE
object of SPGB is to abolish capitalism and establish Socialism,
and all our political activity is exclusively devoted to that end.
It
is claimed that because some reforms are beneficial to sections of
the working class, we have a duty to support them. This misses the
whole point of our attitude to reform measures. WE
DO NOT SUPPORT GOOD REFORMS, NOR OPPOSE BAD REFORMS. We are
simply not in the business of advocating or opposing reforms, including
constitutional reforms. Political support for reforms is in direct
conflict with our sole aim of Socialism.
It
is also claimed that women's liberation organisations are in a special
category because they deal specifically with women's problems, and
that they are not political. This is naive. Their objectives must,
in the final analysis, be achieved by the lobbying of the main political
parties - by political action which is directly opposed to Socialism.
Since the 1970's the women's Liberation movement has had a variety
of aims. It has argued that improved contraception means that women
no longer need be tied to family commitments, and that the traditional
dominant decision making role of the male must go. It has argued and
demonstrated for equal pay, equal education, equal job opportunities,
free contraception, abortion on demand, free community controlled
child care, financial and legal independence for all women, freedom
from violence and sexual coercion, and from all things which prolong
male dominance. These are hardly earthshaking proposals. Their achievements
have been small and like all reforms are open to being watered down
or reversed at some stage in the future.
By
making the absurd claim that women's oppression is due to male domination,
those in favour of women's liberation are dividing and confusing the
working class. See for example the SOCIALIST STANDARD article "The
Beauty Myth", July 1993, page 100, the journal of the Clapham
based so called Socialist Party. This organisation is united in its
support for women's liberation organisations. In the above article
the following appeared:
"Like the Trade Union movement the feminist movements of this
century have been useful in fighting for improved conditions within
the framework of capitalism".
Obviously
the editors of the SOCIALIST STANDARD do not know the difference between
trade union action which is an aspect of the class struggle and a
political reform movement which cannot struggle at all, and is dependant
on the goodwill of the capitalists. No reform measures can be introduced
against the united will of the capitalists. Trade unions can enforce
demands for higher wages, better conditions etc against the united
will of the capitalists by the threat of strike action, if the conditions
are favourable. Much of the improvement of the workers' standards
of living over the past 100 years or so has been due to trade union
action. To equate the puny achievements of the many feminist movements
this century with the achievements of the trade unions is to show
an ignorance of reality.
SPGB has not, and does not support women's liberation organisations.
Despite the theorising, they turn out to be no different from all
other movements which choose to put immediate demands before the socialist
aims of a revolutionary change of the social system. The class division
in capitalist society cuts across all differences of nationality,
race and sex. The emancipation of women can only come together with
the emancipation of their class through the realisation of Socialism,
which will emancipate:
"all mankind without distinction of
race or sex" (SPGB Principles, No 4)
Back to top
SOCIALISM
FOR EMANCIPATION
Within
capitalism the problem common to both sexes is that of getting a living,
but a living within capitalism is not emancipation. The vast majority
of women and men, including non-employed housewives and pensioners
etc belong to the working class. It is membership of this class which
places limitations on the personal lives of both sexes. The logical
solution is for one working class organisation having Socialism as
its sole object.
Despite
the suffering and discontent caused by the rapid expansion of capitalism,
it is precisely this system which makes the emancipation of women
feasible, since it has given women a role in social production outside
of the home. from the start SPGB recognised
the problem that class divided capitalism could not be run in the
interests of both the capitalist class and the working class, as their
economic interests are diametrically opposed. We argue that it is
therefor necessary to transform capitalism into a new society wherein
all would be social equals: equal in having their needs met and equal
in security without distinction of race or sex. Unlike capitalism,
which runs in an essentially anti-social way, Socialism would be free
from war and economic rivalry. Common ownership (not state ownership)
and democratic control of the means of production and distribution
will mean the end of economic exploitation and social classes. Men
and women will be free to arrange their personal lives according to
their individual choice, whatever form the family takes.
Back to top
WOMEN
WITHIN MODERN CAPITALISM
That
women are in a position of subjection goes without saying. But they
are not in a subjection to men but to class society. Men and women
of the working class are both in subjection to capital. Today as many
women are in employment as men. but they tend to be in part time and
lower paid jobs. Further, it is not easy for women to ascend the employment
ladder to better, higher paid jobs. Even doing the same job as a man
they may not get the same pay. Job definitions can be a legal get
out; men are "chefs" and women are "cooks". The
equality that both men and women share is that of being wage slaves.
Inequality
and discrimination (not just sexual discrimination) will remain for
the working class for as long as capitalism continues. The working
class will continue to be exploited and suffer as victims of the capitalist
class which owns the means of life - the land, the factories, mines,
transport facilities, communications, media etc. exploitation being
the expropriation of the workers' unpaid labour.
Like
other reformist movements, wishing by legislation to change the way
capitalism operates, the well meaning people who seek equal pay and
opportunities for women, disregard the fact that the aim of the employer,
whether private or state organisation, is to make a profit. Legal
enforcement of higher wages for women, as happens with minimum wage
legislation generally, decreases the attraction to the employer of
having paid women on the payroll. As has happened in the past, at
a time of heavy unemployment, especially in minimum wage industries,
there will be widespread breaches of the law by employers that will
be accepted by workers, including women, rather than lose their jobs.
Back to top
BIOLOGY,
LOVE & THE FAMILY
Before
class society there was no need, no reason, to treat one sex as inferior
- there being no owners or non-owners of property - and so no competition.
From the inception of class society, women have suffered discrimination.
The home of the Roman patrician, the feudal baron, and the capitalist,
all contained elements of male domination.
Today
marriage and the family, for the working class, are to the extent
that they survive, mere legal devices to protect property rights.
The cost of broken marriages and single parent families is increasing
the burden for the capitalist state. It is a trend which the capitalists
are certain to resist by trying to force individual parents to make
provision for their offspring and unemployed "spouses".
To expect love to flourish under capitalism, based on greed and hatred
is akin to looking for figs on thistles.
Women's
environment, particularly in childhood, is the cause of inferiority
where it exists. From their earliest years they are taught that women
are inferior in position, and take it for granted that this is normal.
This brings us to the so called sex inequality.
In
a biological sense men and women are equal, and the one is the complement
of the other. There is nothing mystical about the differences between
the sexes. each is specialised for its own task: that of producing
the two kinds of sexual cells. The probable only real mental differences
between men and women are the instincts directly concerned with sexual
intercourse and the care of children. To the biologist, there is no
suggestion of inferiority or superiority in the physical attributes
of both sexes. They merely express the specialisation which accompanies
sex in all types of animal.
We
have seen that the advance of capitalism and economic necessity have
driven women out of the home and into the labour market. When working
class men and women recognise that their battle is one and the same,
we shall be much nearer to a realisation of the co-operative commonwealth
that socialists desire. There is no gender problem. There is a problem,
but it is a social problem. Similarities between the sexes are far
greater than the differences. Both ahve the same capacity for getting
upset and hurt, both need companionship, security and affection. They
both need each other as man and woman.
Today
some women are disgusted by the constant blatant advertisements, which
display female bodies in order to sell products. But they should recognise
that the attitude which promotes this, the acceptance and promotion
of capitalism's inherent commercialism, is no different from that
attitude which prepares young girls to take an interest in clothes
and make-up from an early age so as to eventually be able to trade
their attractiveness for economic security.
Back to top
SPGB HISTORICAL ATTITUDE
The
fact that SPGB Principles, drawn up at its formation in 1904,
call for the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race
or sex speaks for itself. Since its foundation the Party has always
recognised that:
"The whole history of women in class society has been and
continues to be a history of special discrimination, of attitudes
based on male superiority. But these attitudes are a product of class
society and are not due to something in the male character. They did
not exist among primitives in tribal communal society and they cannot
exist under world socialism"
(WESTERN SOCIALIST, Volume 41, No 4, 1974)
Back to top
THE
FUTURE
Whilst
SPGB can give no blueprint of what exactly Socialism will be like,
we can say that it will abolish the major social problems thrown up
by capitalism; unemployment, insecurity, war, poverty etc. and that
the social relations will be far more harmonious than those existing
today. With the economic foundations of society free from the trammels
of property and economic insecurity, the ground is cleared for new
more amicable relations between people, including sexual relations.
Unlike the Clapham based Socialist Party who brush aside the work
of Engels and L H Morgan as being outdated, SPGB acknowledges
the invaluable work carried out by them in the field of the family,
private property and the formation of the state. Their work shows
the development of society through its various stages up to the capitalist
era, including the position of women in society. We end our contribution
by quoting from both Engels and Morgan. Of sexual relations after
the end of capitalism, Engels has this to say:
"What we may anticipate about the adjustment of sexual relations
after the impending downfall of capitalist production is mainly of
a negative nature, and mostly confined to elements that will disappear.
But what will be added? That will be decide after a new generation
has come to maturity: a race of men who never in their lives have
had occasion for buying with money or other economic means of power
the surrender of a woman; a race of women who have never had any occasion
for surrendering to any man for any other reason but love, or for
refusing to surrender to their lover from fear of economic consequences.
Once such people are in the world, they will not give a moment's thought
to what we today believe should be their course. They will follow
their own practice and fashion their own public opinion, about the
individual practice of every person - only this and nothing more"
(THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY & THE STATE, F Engels,
Chapter 2, page 100 Kerr Edition)
And
what can be said about the future of the family?
".. it must advance as society advances, and change as society
changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the
social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family
has improved freatly since the commencement of civilization, and very
sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable
of still furhter improvement, until the equality of the sexes is attained.
Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer
the requirements of society, assuming the continuous progress of civilization,
it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor"
(ANCIENT SOCIETY, Lewis H Morgan, page 499, Kerr edition)
Finally
we cannot emphasise too strongly that women have an equal opportunity
with men to work for Socialism, and that all contributions are welcomed
from both sexes. When a majority of the working class decides that
it wishes to establish Socialism, it will take conscious political
action to get socialist delegates elacted to Parliament in order to
get control of the machinery of government, to dispossess the capitalist
clas of their property and establish common ownership and democratic
control as the bais of the new society. To this end we welcome both
men and women!
WORKERS
OF THE WORLD UNITE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS, YOU
HAVE A WORLD TO WIN.
Back to top
WHATEVER
HAPPENED TO FEMINISM
In republishing
our pamphlet WOMEN AND SOCIALISM we are taking the opportunity to
ask the important question: "whatever happened to feminism?"
This is not an academic question but a political one. For many decades
feminists told Socialists that they could accomodate women's demands
within capitalism. The continued insecurity of employment, home life
and other social problems facing working class women show this not
to be the case.
During
the 19th century Socialists had begun to pay interest to the question
of women in capitalist society and in different social systems throughout
human history. In 1879 August Bebel published his book WOMEN IN THE
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. This was followed by Engel's THE ORIGIN
OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE in 1884. And in 1886,
Eleanor Marx-Aveling and Edward Aveling published their essay THE
WOMAN QUESTION. All three books were published at a time when female
suffragette groups were agitating for the vote, particularly in Britain
and the US.
Consequently,
since then, there have always been two political alternatives facing
working class women under capitalism: feminism or revolutionary socialism.
The first, advocated by feminists, believes that the problems facing
women can be achieved through social reforms. The second, argued by
Socialists, believes that the problems facing women can only be resolved
within the framework of common ownership and democratic control of
the means of production and distribution by all of society.
Although
the origins of feminism can be traced back to the 18th century, for
example, Mary Wollstonecraft's VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN
(1792), organised political activity did not occur until the struggle
for women's votes in the 19th century. The various strands of the
female suffrage movement came together in 1897, with the establishment
of the National Union of Suffrage Societies. A more confrontational
and direct action politics occurred in 1903, with close links to the
Independent Labour Party.
A year
later, in 1904, SPGB was established
with a singular aim, recognising in its fourth principle:
"That as in the order of social evolution the working class
is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the
working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without
distinction of race or sex"
In the
decades prior to the First World War, SPGB refused any support
to the suffrage campaign on the grounds that what the working class
needed was Socialism, not votes. Enough votes existed to establish
Socialism but were being used to retain capitalism. A request for
financial help from Emmeline Pethick Lawrence (SOCIALIST STANDARD,
April, 1906) met with the reply that class-consciousness must come
first: "Of what use is the vote when the working class use
it agianst their own class interests". Later SPGB remarked
"Sex equality could not be the fruit of Suffragette humbug,
it could come only through economic equality - and economic equality
is impossible except through Socialism" (SOCIALIST STANDARD,
June, 1908).
Contemporary
feminism came out of the student politics of the late 1960's and early
1970's around the question of social reforms like abortion, equal
pay, state welfare for mothers and equal education. The first national
women's conference, held at Ruskin College, Oxford in February-March
1970, and attended largely by academics, students and journalists,
had four demands. These were equal pay, equal education and opportunities,
24-hour nurseries, fre contraception and abortion on demand.
Instead
of recognising the class struggle as the primary agent of change in
society, feminists believed that there was a gender struggle between
men and women. Men held and exercised social power and women did not.
Change the power relationship between men and women, so feminists
thought, and you would have a more equitable society.
In debates
with feminists SPGB pointed out that
workers accomodatong themselves within capitalism did not further
their own class interests. Capitalism could not be reformed to run
in the interest of all society. To solve social problems meant the
workers as a whole, consciously and politically, abolishing class
relations and class power. To solve social problems facing workers
you first had to establish socialism.
Feminists
rejected the political reality of the class struggle. They believed
women's problems could be addressed and resolved within capitalism
largely because they had a totally ill-conceived and naive understanding
of the profit system.
To struggle
for equal pay and opportunities ignores the fact that the aim of the
employer, whether private or state, is to make a profit. Legal enforcement
of higher wages for women (as happens with minimum wage enforcement
generally) decreases the low-pay attraction to the capitalist of employment
women. Class also limits access to education. Working class male children
do not get the same educational opportunities as female children from
the capitalist class just as females of working class parents do not
get the same educational opportunities as male children of capitalists.
The failure of feminist politics derives from its failure to understand
the class nature of capitalism and the primary class relationship
of private property ownership.
SPGB does not support feminist groups. They are no different from
other reform movements who place immediate demands before the Socialist
aim of abolishing capitalism. It would be true to say that even if
all the demands for equal and political rights were achieved it would
not mean the freedom of women, or anything near it. The majority of
women, like the majority of men, belong to the wage and salary earning
class, and this class cannot realise their true potential so long
as the means of production and what workers produce remain the property
of the capitalists.
Contrary
to political opportunists, there can be no non-political reform movement.
The aims of any reformist organisation can only be transmitted through
capitalist parties, like the Labour Party, and through government
legislation like the Sex Discrimination Act. And as with all reforms
they will be framed within the interests of the capitalist class since
it is this class that, ultimately, has to pay for these measures through
taxation.
Women
workers like their male counterparts are still exploited in the productive
process, still have unmet needs and still exist in the precarious
world of employment. Globally millions of women live in poverty, have
little or no childcare facilities and face high infant mortality rates.
Millions of women are excluded from basic education.
The
question asked by Socialists is. In the class struggle, what have
feminists achieved for working class women over the last century or
so? The answer is very little. Their position in class society remains
the same. In the more developed capitalist countries being a mother
and having to work is extrememly stressful. A single mother on benefits
is living a hard, often lonely life. If Socialism had been established
by now none of these problems would exist.
This
does not mean Socialists are unaware that individual women have real
problems dealing with individual men or groups of men. But working
class women share the same problems as their male counterparts. The
vast majority of women and men, including non-employed housewives
and pensioners, belong to the working class. It is membership of this
class that places limitations on the personal life of both sexes.
The logical solution is for one working class organisation having
Socialism as its sole objective.
Socialists
have a deeper understanding of capitalism. the problems faced by both
male and female workers derive from their class position. As a class
they face a capitalist class, politically, over the ownership and
control of the means of production. Feminists were quiescent about
private property relationships because it would have meant criticism
of female capitalists and the class power they possessed and used
against the working class as a whole.
The
main political parties have to run capitalism and that means framing
policy within the limits of profit, competition and the interests
of capitalists. Reforms can be enacted but not necessarily enforced.
Social reforms now have the aim of saving money under the pressure
of foreign competition. It was noticeable how many former feminists,
now Labour MP's and government ministers, voted to reduce money going
to single mothers.
Socialists
recognise that the problem faced by working class women is part and
parcel of the problem facing the working class as a whole. Capitalism
denies real social needs, it distorts human relationships to exchange
relationships and it keeps an entire class in wage slavery. In short,
capitalism cannot meet the needs of all society. feminism has no future
but Socialism has.
Back to top
Acknowledgement
and Memorial
The
author of this pamphlet, ken Knight, died on Wednesday 5th November
1997: he wrote the Preface to the Second Reprint of this pamphlet
just prior to his death. He had been a member of SPGB for nearly 50 years, and was a regular contributor
to the SOCIALIST STANDARD and latterly to our Journal - SOCIALIST
STUDIES. In 1991 when we insisted on using the Party's name - SPGB, he and other comrades were summarily
expelled from the organisation that had become the Socialist Party.
His
overall contribution to the Socialist cause covered many aspects -
writing and speaking and prior to his expulsion he undertook many
organisational tasks at the Clapham HQ. He was always willing to deal
with enquiries from here and abroad and many will have received detailed
replies to their questions about the Party and the fundamentals of
our case. He als took charge of our Audio Tapes Library and sent out
many copies from our list of nearly 100.
His
place in the movement will not be easy to fill.
Back to top