File spoon-archives/marxism-feminism.archive/marxism-feminism_1998/marxism-feminism.9804, message 27


Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:23:01 -0400
From: owner-marxism-feminism-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU


[All caps are so hard on my eyes that I had to retype Linda's post in
order to read it with any care.]
Sender: owner-marxism-feminism-AT-localhost
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: marxism-feminism-AT-localhost

Linda G writes (responding to Yoshie):

<< Granted, her response is fairly lame and incredibly PC, But just what
would you have her do?>>

If Linda's own description of Gloria Feldt is at all accurate, then quite
clearly it is in the first place necessary to point this out, whether or
not one is prepared to "step into Feldt's shoes" as it were. "What would
you do?" is under some conditions an absolutely wrong question to respond
to. The Anti-War movement in the 1960s remained toothless and scattered as
long as it took any responsibility *whatever* to respond to that question.
I am not nor was I ever a friend of the SWP, but a crucial fact of the
1960s was that the SWP brought to the anti-war movement the only slogan on
which the movement could grow: Bring the troops home NOW. Any bending
whatever on this question, the least willingness to enter into an argument
or discussion of what the U.S. government "ought to do" in Viet Nam was
utterly disastrous.

And that is what we are involved in here: a fight over the correct slogan
for the movement to defend a woman's absolute right to a free abortion on
demand without offering a reason. Feldt (and the whole movement as
organized by those who felt that "Pro-Choice" rather than "Pro-abortion"
was the winning slogan) got herself into this ridiculous position. In
rebuilding the pro-abortion movement in the United States we have no
obligation to advise Feldt on what she "should" do; we do have a heavy
obligation to demand the right to abortion, and to force the Feldts and
others if possible to stop using that silly and supine "pro-choice"
slogan.

<<Respond in kind,>>

Of course not. This is the evil of always believing one has to answer the
question "What would you do?" Given the position Feldt and her
organization has gotten herself and themselves into, the only honest thing
for them to do would be to apologize to the women of America for "leading"
them into a situation where this kind of nonsensical speech is even
conceivable. The proper answer is, Not get into such a position, and if
one has blundered into it, apologize and get out. In other words, all we
can do with Feldt is condemn her. In her situation, everything she does or
might do is wrong. As a simple matter of truth telling it is necessary to
point that out. Movements are based on truth, not cleverness in speaking
the enemy's language.


<<thereby (1) bringing herself (and metonymically the entire group she
represents) down to the bombers' and arsonist's level, and (2) further
inflaming the whole situation? There are no easy solutions, and pouring
oil on burning waters will only make the flames burn hotter.  Linda G.>>

I hope nasty things come to anti-abortion activists (whether or not they
are bombers and terrorists), such as bankruptcy and losing their jobs and
being hooted out of their neighborhood and in general made to feel like
the slime they are. And if some idiot (driven berserk by the evils of
imperialism) blows up an anti-abortion activist's home I will do as I
understand Lenin did when he heard of the assassination of the Grand Duke,
said "Good Show" in the privacy of his home and then sat down to write an
article attacking terrorism as a tactic or strategy.

For the right, "bombing and terror" are clearly good tactics now. They
work. Before long abortions will cost enough (and the supply limited
enough) so that abortion will be just as available as it was before the
Supreme Court decision: available to anyone who knows where to look, can
afford an air line ticket to the correct place, and can pay $500 in 1960
dollars.

Bombs and terror would just as clearly be bad, utterly destructive,
tactics for the left in the U.S. now. *But it is just that, a tactical and
political question, not a matter of principle or morals. And I certainly
do not like to see statements made about tactics that in any way
whatsoever would cast doubt on our comrades in (say) Columbia, or wherever
else the struggle has moved from the arm of criticism to the criticism of
arms.

The struggle to defend the right to abortion is in fact in tatters, and
the court decision is trivial one way or the other. The struggle will have
to be rebuilt, and the first stage of that rebuilding is to fight against
the opportunism of the "pro-choice" movement and slogan. As a friend from
Southern Illinois remarked to me back in 1969, "Opportunism is seldom
opportune." Abortion is not a moral issue, it is a medical procedure which
should be available to any woman on demand and free. If the attack
launched against American workers in the early 1970s is to be reversed
(and the attack on affirmative action and on the right to abortion are key
material and ideological parts of that attack), the absolute minimum
requirement is that such leftists as there are about the nation must
resist within the workers movement (and related or incorporated battles,
of which that over abortion is of utmost importance) the omnipresent
tendency to allow the issues to be stated in terms that are
self-defeating. Allowing abortion to be treated as a moral question is
just one of the many opportunist tendencies we need to struggle against.


Michael Hoover comments:

>why all caps?...they are hard on the eyes to read and there is no need to
>yell (although there is a certain irony given your comment about
>'inflaming')

It is now, as it always has been and while capitalism survives always will
be, the task of marxists to "inflame." Any liberal even who has actually
been involved in anything like mass organizing knows that.

Gloria Feldt undoubtedly believes in the ridiculous implications of her
proposition that anything like "a free and democratic society" exists in
the USA today. But there is no reason whatever for marxists (or
progressives of any theoretical perspective) to encourage such disabling
lies. Actually, there is nothing to say about Feldt's statement but "boo!"
To "answer" it in its own terms, or to offer "positive alternatives," is
demeaning to women, to workers, to marxism.

I of course agree with Michael's further comments:

<<...does criticism of a 'lame response' contain within it a
call for arson/bombing?...why either/or?...Michael Hoover>>

And Yoshie replies:

<<Those who harp on 'civility' are almost never 'civil' in their conduct. 
And folks who go on and on about 'morality' can't be counted upon to do
the right thing in time.

<<Anyway, now I elaborate my original comments:

<<(1) Though we might respect each other's humanity, there is no need to
'respect each other's views.' I in fact argue that nobody--including Feldt
and Linda G--'respects' everyone else's view, much less her opponents'.
And can anyone expect fundamentalist anti-abortionists to 'respect' our
persons, not to mention our 'views'?>>

This is certainly true in reference to Feldt. I have attacked Linda G's
views vigorously above, and have attacked similar views in many different
forums over the years, and I am angry -- at those views. I am willing to
debate the issue, as one among pro-abortionists, further.

<<(2) If Feldt truly 'respects' fundamentalist anti-abortionists' views,
she must also 'respect' the fact that in their worldviews, beliefs and
actions are not to be separate. She can't and doesn't.>>

Yes. 

<<(3) I don't think the argument that "[T]here is no morality without
choice' helps women who want to exercise our agency in reproduction,
whether to terminate pregnancy or to give birth. To begin with, having a
theoretical choice doesn't mean much if women--esp. poor women--do not
enjoy the material and ideological conditions that allow us to exercise
our agency.>>

I want to emphasize "ideological conditions." The *chief* barrier to
abortion today is the constant hammering away on the perverse theme of
"abortion as a moral choice." This puts incredible pressure on women (on
young women especially). An abortion is no more a moral choice than is
seeking medical treatment for a broken leg or bronchitis. If the offensive
of the anti-abortionists is ever to be turned back, it is absolutely
essential that strong voices be raised against all barriers to abortion,
including "moral" or "psychological" barriers. The Pro-Choice movement (I
almost mistyped anti-choice, but that is what it ought to be called) by
granting so many of the moralistic premises of the reactionaries
("responsibility" for one's actions, for example: a slogan also turned now
with a vengeance against welfare) has brought about this debacle. I see no
reason why we should treat its leaders politely (except when it is good
tactics to do so: but this is a maillist, not a public forum).

Carrol

P.S. In my rather lengthy cyber-acquaintance with Yoshie I have sometimes
wondered whether in such cultures as Japan's, relatively free from the
deadening and destructive moralizing of Christianity, the progressive
movement when it does get underway (again) will advance much more quickly
than in the U.S.


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005