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.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005