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