File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9707, message 31


Date: Thu, 3 Jul 97 02:21:49 UT
From: "charlotte kates" <CKates-AT-msn.com>
Subject: RE: M-I: CPUSA and womens movement


	As a female member of the CPUSA, I've found this thread to be interesting; 
however, those such as Neil, who refuse to accept anything but an 
all-or-nothing approach, and in fact condemnation, lose the essence of the 
Party's record on issues of gender and sexuality--the Party's legacy is one of 
great ambiguities and masive contradictions. This Party is the one that 
birthed Mary Inman and the Mattachines, yet it is also the one from which they 
were expelled or left in disgust or protest.

	The Party's record on women's issues is far better than that of the bourgeois 
parties, at least in the early years of its existence. The 1920's were, in 
fact, the high point for women in the Party. As well as a time of intense 
factionalism and divergent tendencies, it was also a time of greater power and 
respect for women and less repression in matters of sexuality. However, as the 
desire to unify the Party and reach a popular audience mounted, the CP's 
approach to women's roles and women's issues became more regressive. Nearly 
all legislation supporting the equality of women was looked upon doubtfully as 
being dangerous to protective labor laws for women. This was a much more 
popular view in the early part of the century; however, the Party continued to 
rely on this reasoning at least into the early 1980's, when, for at least a 
time, the Party opposed the ERA. 

	The Party's relationship to feminism has been fragile and at times, hostile. 
"Feminist" was once nearly as harsh a condemnation as "male chauvinist." 
(which actually did become popular in the CP and affiliated left. Remember, 
this is that party also of "white chauvinism" and so on. Apparently, as far as 
I can ascertain, the popularity of these terms dated from Lenin's condemnation 
of "Great Russian chauvinism.")--and was at times in fact a harsher criticism. 
"Feminism" implied bourgeois, anti-workingclass ideology on the part of idle 
middle-class women. However, the Party sought no new feminist 
movement--despite having feminists as members and members as feminists, the 
*Daily Worker* women's page was filled with shopping and housekeeping advice. 
Women comrades who supported women's rights were anxious to dismiss any 
charges of feminism that might be levelled at them, and the Women's 
Commission, although in many cases taking advanced positions for its time, was 
seen in many cases as an internal review board which oversaw Party activities 
and propaganda, searching for male chauvinist slogans and attitudes. 

	Women in leadership positions, interestingly enough, were given the familiar 
term "Mother", while in reality, women's fortunes in CP leadership tended to 
decline in inverse proportion to the number of children they bore. To this 
day, this pattern continues in the Party. Despite the Party's assurances that 
it wholeheartedly supports the full political equality of women and "opposes 
all attempts to relegate women to merely clerical or 'housekeeping' duties, " 
(*To Be A Communist*, 1985, CP Central Committee) in fact, this is often 
exactly what transpires within the CPUSA. Most women working at the national 
center do so in just such duties, and while notable exceptions exist--Judith 
LeBlanc, Evelina Alarcon and Terrie Albano, for example--many women who serve 
in national leadership positions do so in internal, organizational and even 
secretarial capacities. The number of women in actual active leadership roles 
pales in comparison to the number of rank-and-file women Party activists, and 
always has. A friend commented,  "It's the women who run this party and run it 
well." This, however, ignores the glaring fact that no, or at the most, one, 
woman is considered a viable candidate to become National Chair at the time of 
Gus Hall's imminent retirement.

	Despite this, I do not see that there are, or were, two parties. The 
leadership and the rank-and file may have a stormy, love-hate relationship at 
times--and always have--yet, they are integral parts of the same body. The 
leadership could not retain its present composition if not for the 
acquiescence of the majority of the rank and file, and the rank and file have 
the capability to leave. This is not what happened in 1991, or 1956, or at any 
other time in the Party's history--both major splits were those which began in 
the leadership, drawing on rank and file concerns, and those who left composed 
both groupings in the Party. The CPUSA has always been one party, and to 
stigmatize the Party's leadership throughout history as the "negative 
influence", in comparison to the portrait of the rank and file as the 
"positive influence" and "independent, separate party" is an 
oversimplification that denies the intensity and thoroughness of the CPUSA's 
contradictions and vying legacies. 

	The CPUSA and the women's movement have had a relationship determined by 
conflict, contradiction, and coexistence. Within and without of the Party, CP 
members and leaders have been leading forces for the rights of women; yet at 
other times it has been a party marred by sexism and discrimination, and by 
denial of both the oppression and needs of women. The CPUSA can and will be 
revitalized--yet this can only be done by aligning ourselves with *all* 
movements for liberation--including those of women and gays, lesbians, and 
bisexuals, another area in which the Party has fallen thoroughly and sadly 
short, and in which it continues to fall short. In the same *To Be A 
Communist* pamphlet, contained was the infamous comment that "the 'gay 
liberation movement' is neither revolutionary nor progressive"--a statement, 
that, despite active discussion of the issue preceding the last convention and 
a large portion of the membership requesting and even demanding change, has 
never been officially withdrawn by the Party, despite the YCL's longstanding 
commitment (since its reorganization in 1983) to the struggle against 
homophobia and heterosexism. 

	The Party needs change. This cannot be denied, nor do I think it will be by 
most inside and outside the Party. Its legacy is something to learn 
from--neither to idolize nor to condemn, but from which to take, to free our 
movement today of these weaknesses, and move forward in our roles as 
Communists--as fighters for the liberation of all oppressed and exploited. 


Charlotte L. Kates  


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005