Defending LSA Strategy
in the Women's Movement
by Lis Angus
The Other Woman claims that the LSA is out to
“divert the women’s Movement away from smashing male supremacism and all
the attending evils of racism, classism, etc., and towards getting more
reforms and basic civil liberties. They try to persuade women that as we
get more freedoms such as abortion, day care centers, women’s studies
programs, capitalism will gradually change and we will be totally free.”
Two points are made in this brief quotation. The first is
that women will not gain their liberation through a process of gradual
changes and-reform—that a fundamental change in society is required.
This point is absolutely correct. The Other Woman
is simply wrong to say that the LSA does not hold this view—to state that
our strategy is a reformist one. In the first article of this series, we
explained the revolutionary strategy of the LSA and YS.
Where we disagree with The Other Woman is not on
whether or not a revolution is necessary, but on what kind of revolution.
We pointed out that it is a socialist revolution, with the working class
as a whole playing the decisive role, which is needed before women’s
oppression can be ended; and that The Other Woman’s concept of a
“feminist revolution” ignores the nature of the society we live in and how
it must be changed.
We pointed out that the struggle against women’s
oppression is part of the struggle to overthrow the capitalist class and
the institutions through which it maintains its power. Thus, this
struggle will play an important role in the coming socialist revolution.
The second point made by The Other Woman is that
concrete struggles for women’s needs are a diversion from the task of
fundamentally changing society.
Nothing could be further from the truth. People will come
to an understanding of the’ need for revolution only through struggles for
concrete gains—for demands that grow out of their immediate needs. The
fights today for repeal of the abortion laws, for child care or for equal
pay, are part of the process through which women are coming to
revolutionary conclusions.
It is through struggles like these that women will learn
the power of collective action, and will gain confidence in their own
ability to struggle and win victories.
It is in concrete struggles that women will learn who
their enemies are, and how firmly they oppose women’s liberation. Women
will find out for themselves that their oppression is rooted in the very
structure of society; that although the government may be forced to
concede certain reforms, women’s oppression can only be eliminated through
changing the whole system.
And it is in such struggles that women will also learn
where their allies can be found: namely in the working class and in other
oppressed groups in this society.
Women will learn the Importance of carrying their own
struggles independently of the ruling class ‘and its institutions—that
they .cannot rely. on government commissions, councils, ministries or
government-funded projects to carry women’s fights for them.
That is the process by which the LSA and YS see women
radicalizing. But how does The Other Woman propose to unite women
so that they can become a powerful force for change?
It doesn’t. The perspective it does offer—that of
excluding points of view it disagrees with (like that of the LSA and YS)
from the women’s movement—can only fragment women’s struggles.
The fight to legalize abortion
The Other Woman accuses the LSA of having “co-opted
the abortion issue from the women’s movement.”
What lies behind this charge?
The LSA supports the abortion rights struggle, and LSA
women have helped to lead this struggle. We support it not only because
the struggle to win abortion rights is an important one for women, but
because it is around this issue that opponents of women’s liberation
around the world are lining up to fight. And it is around this issue that
women have mobilized; since 1970, when the Abortion Caravan crossed Canada
to lead a march of women in Ottawa, women have shown their willingness to
act against this aspect of their oppression.
The LSA and the YS did not create this ferment around the
abortion issue. We recognized it and acted to join and help lead this
struggle. Far from co-opting the movement, we fought for a perspective of
reaching out and involving more women in the campaign. We have
consistently challenged all feminist organizations to participate.
What the charge of co-optation” covers up is the fact that
supporters of the views expressed in The Other Woman have
abstained from the abortion rights struggle. They have remained on the
sidelines, refusing to join one of the most militant and active tights for
women’s rights—one which if defeated would constitute a grave setback to
the entire women’s liberation movement.
Defense of Dr. Morgentaler
The Other Woman also attacks the LSA for supporting
the campaign to defend Dr. Morgentaler, the Montreal physician who faces
charges of performing illegal abortions. The article states that “doctors
who have made thousands of dollars” from performing abortions for women
should not be the emphasis of the abortion campaign. “Because he (Dr.
Morgentaler) is a man, he will-draw attention to the issue for the worst
anti-woman reasons. He is not a hero for doing what is every doctor’s
duty.”
These statements reveal a complete lack of understanding
of what the prosecution of Dr. Morgentaler means for the women’s movement.
Who decided to focus the struggle for abortion rights
around Dr. Morgentaler?
The LSA? The abortion law repeal movement? No.
That decision was made by the federal government and the
Quebec Justice Department when they launched this prosecution.
The opponents of women’s right to abortion hope to deal a
vicious blow to the women’s movement by convicting Dr. Morgentaler. If he
is convicted, not only will safe abortions be much harder to get, but
women’s confidence in their ability to struggle collectively and win
victories will be severely undermined.
On . the other hand, a victory for Dr. Morgentaler would
mean a victory for Canadian women. It would give women confidence in their
ability to struggle—and spur on the fight to remove the anti-abortion law
from the Criminal Code.
Much more is at stake in this case than imply the
professional reputation and liberty of an individual doctor. In defending
him, women are responding to one of the most vicious attacks they have
faced in this country. It is a real test of strength, in which the
anti-woman forces are lined up against the women’s movement and its
allies.
But again we see The Other Woman and its supporters
weakening the struggle by abstaining from it.
Supporters of The Other Woman’s point of view have
allowed the fact that Dr. Morgentaler is male—and their belief that women
can have nothing to do with men—to blind them to the real implications of
this case for women. The challenge before supporters of The Other Woman—as
before all supporters of women’s rights—is to join the fight for the
right of women to control their reproductive lives by helping prevent the
victimization of Dr. Morgentaler.
Debate and discussion
The Other Woman raises some incidents which
supposedly “expose” the divisive role of LSA women in the women’s
movement. Two debates are cited, one in the Vancouver Women’s Caucus in
1970 and one in the Toronto Women’s Caucus in 1972.
Aside from the distortions and inaccuracies in these
accounts, and the fact that only one viewpoint in the debates is reported,
what the article really accuses LSA women of is arguing openly for our
politics.
Apparently, what we argued for is irrelevant—since The
Other Woman makes no attempt to explain what we said in these debates,
much less answer our arguments.
What LSA women have consistently argued for is the
perspective of building the women’s movement which was presented in the
earlier part of this reply. In particular, we argued for democratic
decision-making and non-exclusionism in the women’s movement, and the
importance of concrete struggles like the abortion rights struggle to draw
increasing numbers of women into the movement and give them confidence in
their collective strength.
But The Other Woman does not try to argue against
these ideas—it attacks us simply for presenting them.
The Other Woman implies that it is debate which
causes differences. In reality, the differences existed anyway; the
debates simply brought the differences into the open and began the process
of clarifying them.
This is a crucial process. The women’s movement can never
be afraid of open discussion and debate or it will die.
Democracy and Leadership
The Other Woman charges LSA women with wanting to
lead the women’s movement.
Certainly. We want to convince women to support out ideas
and our approach—just as does anyone with any confidence in their ideas,
including, presumably, The Other. Woman. Only the future will show which
views prove able to win women’s support in life.
But The Other Woman suggests that leadership per
se is a bad thing: the article says, “we do not build a movement along
such hierarchial lines.”
We do not advocate a hierarchial leadership, but a
leadership that is democratically elected on the basis of discussion and
common understanding of the tasks. In the absence of such a democratic
leadership, what develops is not egalitarianism but self-appointed clique
leaderships which are not responsible to anyone. We have seen this happen
time and time again in the women’s movement, undermining women’s
confidence and the effectiveness of their struggles.
The Other Woman accuses the LSA of being
undemocratic. In fact, it is their approach which is undemocratic—it
proposes a women’s movement which allows no open discussion of
differences, which operates with an undercover leadership, and which
excludes anyone who objects to this perspective.
Male dominated?
The Other Woman accuses LSA women of belonging to a
“male-dominated party,” and says, “YS/LSA women are controlled by male
left thought and then use this thought to control other women.”
It is not clear whether The Other Woman feels that
all women who have anything to do with men—and in particular, belong to
organizations that include men—are “male-dominated” and should be excluded
from the movement.
Does that mean that women in the political parties, or in
trade unions, cannot legitimately be part of the women’s movement? What
about women who are married to men? That approach would end up with a very
skimpy list of candidates for the women’s movement.
Revolutionary party
Why do women join the LSA?
First of all, because the LSA completely supports the
fight for women’s liberation; it explains the basis of women’s oppression
and how the fight against it is interlocked with the fight to overthrow
capitalism and construct a socialist society.
And secondly, because of the kind of organization the LSA
is.
The Marxist movement has learned from experience that the
task of overthrowing the capitalist rulers is a very big one. It needs to
be organized and led by a revolutionary party that embodies the
experiences and lessons of all the struggles of the working class and the
oppressed, and is composed of the best and most dedicated militants -who
want to work together to lead the struggle for socialism.
Lenin—who built the Bolshevik party which led the Russian
revolution—first developed the concept of such a party.
What the absence of such a party means was shown most
recently in Chile, where despite the desire of the people for socialism,
without a revolutionary party to lead their struggles, they fell victim to
one of the bloodiest defeats in recent history.
The LSA is modelled on the Bolshevik party; its aim is to
become the kind of party which can effectively lead the revolution in
Canada.
The Other Woman accuses us of “recruiting women
from the women’s movement.” We certainly
do. We do everything we can
to convince feminists of our socialist program, and to encourage them to
join the LSA and YS—to make the most effective contribution to the
struggle to liberate women and all humanity.
A ‘single fight’
The Other Woman says it is necessary to “understand
the integral nature” of struggles around class, race, and sexuality, and
“combine them into a single fight.”
We agree. Further, we feel that only a Marxist analysis
can provide that understanding; only a revolutionary socialist party can
combine these struggles Into a single fight.
That is why we are both feminists and socialists. That is
why me recommend to feminists that they join the LSA and the YS, to help
advance the struggle for a socialist world and the end of all
oppression—including women’s oppression.
[ Top ] [
Part 1 ] [
Documents Index ]
Copyright South Branch Publishing. All
Rights Reserved.
www.socialisthistory.ca ▪
www.southbranch.ca
|
