File spoon-archives/marxism-feminism.archive/marxism-feminism_1997/marxism-feminism.9707, message 126


Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lise Vogel <lvogel-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-FEM: To Lisa V. and Hugh R.




On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Tamara A. Turner wrote:

> The increased "opportunities" for women should be looked at in the >
context of reform vs. revolution...... 
 > Yes, we have to fight for
certain reforms to gain breathing space 
> and to expose the system's
inability to meet the needs of all. But we must > never think that we have
>"won" something. What has happened with any crumb > is that we have pushed
the system so hard that it realizes it's time to > let a little steam out
of the kettle to avoid an explosion. And > IMMEDIATELY after we "win"
anything, the system begins to hack away at it.  > Do the words "right to
abortion on demand" conjure up an image of a solid > victory, won
completely, after which women were able to move on to the > next needed
change? Of course not. The millions of women who spent years > fighting
for abortion are asked now to spend years DEFENDING whatever was > won and
are expected to be "positive" about whatever can be salvaged after > each
rightwing attack sucessfully removes this or that portion of the > initial
"victory".  > 

This was in response to my post questioning whether reforms
in the area of civil rights and of gender should be evaluated by
socialist-feminists as "not enough to notice".  From what she says, my
hunch is that Tamara would analyze any actual reform in the same way, with
the implication that it's not worth doing.  While claiming to be in favor
of the space-clearing and consciousness-raising usefulness of reforms,
this approach can be a real
wet blanket when actually trying to do some political work.  Basically, it
says that reforms can't get you to socialist revolution, that they can be
turned against you, that one has to constantly fight to keep them in
place, etc.--and therefore why bother.  I say:  What else do you expect? 
This is, after all, capitalism.  Meantime, to say de facto
segregation is hardly different from de jure or that the naming of
domestic violence, the reduction of lynching, etc. are essentially useless
reforms, seems to me foolish on a practical level, as well as deeply
undialectical.  Was it Mao who said, "left in form, right in essence?" 
Maybe it was Bob Dylan? 

Lise Vogel




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005