Archive for April, 2013

Alexander Pavlovich Chekalin

April 27, 2013 Leave a comment

Picture 2

Alexander Pavlovich Chekalin was born on March 25, 1925 in the Tula area of Russia. Following Hitler’s invasion, he became involved in partisan activities. These activities included burning warehouses and derailing trains, ‘Shura’ also notably took part in an ambush of German vehicles during the early days of November 1941 and destroyed one vehicle with a hand grenade.

Unfortunately, he then became ill and an unknown informant gave away his location to the Germans.
German soldiers broke into the house where he was staying at night. Alexander threw a grenade at his enemies but it failed to go off. He was then taken away and subjected to torture, although he did not give away any information, he was hanged in the central square on 6 November 1941. His body remained hanging for twenty days and only taken down when the area was liberated.

He was posthumously made a Hero of the Soviet Union on February 4, 1942. The town was renamed after him in 1944 and a monument has been erected in his name. A postage stamp was also issued in his honour and he also posthumously received the Order of Lenin.

Monument in the town formerly known as Likhvin.

Monument in the town formerly known as Likhvin.

Stamp that shows Chekalin confronting his captors.  Stamp price: 30k

Stamp that shows Chekalin confronting his captors.
Stamp price: 30k

Categories: Uncategorized

Aki Orr (1931-2013)

April 21, 2013 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Terry Liddle Memorial Event

April 18, 2013 Leave a comment

Terry Liddle Memorial Event
Saturday 20th April 2013, 2pm to 5pm. Brockway Room, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL
All welcome to come and enjoy a few nibbles, a bit to drink and good comradeship in honour of Terry Liddle 1948-2012
In wild, but considered celebration of Terry Liddle’s maverick life of activism, Atheism, Socialism, Animal Rights, Republicanism, Trades Unionism, Temperance (sometimes), Deptford and the World.
Bookstall on the day. A couple of speeches, with contributions from the floor and the Workers Music Association:
Joe Hill; The Land it is the Landlords’; William Brown; Solidarity Forever; The Internationale

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

David Goodway on ‘The Making of ‘The Making of the English Working Class”- 20 April 2013, Bradford

April 17, 2013 Leave a comment

The Northern Radical History Network are pleased to announce that their next meeting will take place on Saturday 20 April 2013 in Bradford.

This year marks 50 years since the publication of E. P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class, and the book, its author and the book’s impact and legacy will be their meeting’s topic of discussion.

The NRHN are delighted to be joined by David Goodway a social and cultural historian who has become increasingly known as an authority on anarchism. Between 1969 and 2005, David worked in Continuing Education at the University of Leeds, and he was Helen Cam Visiting Fellow in History at Girton College, Cambridge, for 2006-7. His publications include London Chartism, 1838-1848 (1982), Talking Anarchy (with Colin Ward) (2003) and Anarchist Seeds beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward (2006).

David will present a paper entitled The Making of ‘The Making of the English Working Class’ (further details to follow)

The meeting will take place at The Equity Centre, 1 Longlands Street, Bradford, on Saturday 20 April 2013 from 11am – 3pm.

For further details in the interim, please contact Fiona Cosson, email f.cosson [AT]

Categories: Uncategorized

Beyond The Fragments: Feminism and the Making of Socialism

April 16, 2013 Leave a comment

Beyond The Fragments: Feminism and the Making of Socialism (Moving Beyond The Fragments) by Hilary Wainwright

April 15, 2013 Leave a comment

That going beyond the fragments is a problem for many socialists is very much a sign of our times. If we were socialists in the twenties we might be agonizing over whether we should join the Labour left through the ILP or whether we should join the Communist Party which anyway was trying to affiliate to the Labour Party, but there would be little doubt that the Labour Party, warts and all, was the way to go ‘beyond the fragments’.

Since the Labour Party became a party of government, and, more particularly, a party of reactionary government, joining the Labour Party is no longer the automatic choice of people looking for a way of changing society. In the absence though of any socialist alternative, with roots in the local labour movements, it does still offer many socialists a way of gaining a wider political influence than, say, involvement in the women’s movement can achieve. There are many socialist feminists who feel like Sally Alexander from Pimlico, London, that

After ten years in the women’s movement a lot of us felt the desire to take out feminist politics into the socialist movement The women’s movement had brought me closer to SOC} because our demands, even at their minimum, cannot be achieved without a fundamental reorganization of society. And feminism led me to a serious study of Marxism. In this way the urgent net for a socialist strategy was confirmed through my feminism. So for some time I hovered around, wanting to join a socialist p. The Communist Party seemed a possible option. But in their debates on the ‘British Road’ the Communist Party argued for policy of working with left Labour and changing the Labour Party. I thought it was better to join the Labour Party directly; Another thing was that I wanted to be involved in local politics, with socialists from other situations and experiences. The Labour Party offers that possibility. The local Labour Party is very divided but on the left I find a surprising number of people who are very militant socialists. They just would not have given the revolution groups a thought but they are just as deeply committed t~ socialism. A third factor which led me to join was a desire to understand this mammoth institution, and the extraordinary hold which it has. Having been at Ruskin College, involved with man~, active socialists in the Labour Party, I was always interested in this. For any historical relationship between the working class and: the socialist intelligentsia in Britain has taken place mostly within the Labour Party. It is the programme and organization of the Labour Party which have shaped the aspirations of much of the
socialist left and of the working class. As far as I can see, it will continue to do so.

Any discussion of new forms of political organization must take account of these peculiar staying powers and pulling powers: the Labour Party. For in the revolutionary euphoria which followed May 1968 and the Vietnam movement, occurring against a background of the Wilson government and the decay of the Labour left, it was too easy to sound the death knell of the Labour Party without taking these peculiar staying powers into account. As a result there is a danger of there being two lefts, inside and outside the Labour Party, split partly by generation, I partly by region, partly by educational and class background, rather than by politics. These two lefts are often in agreement about all the practical struggles of the day and about the general objectives of social ownership and a new popular form of political power. Yet the issue of whether someone is inside or outside the Labour Party holds back any unified political framework for common action, sustained political debate, and clarification of strategy and policy. However, there are now strong pressures at a local level and within national movements-e.g., in the anti-racist movement, among socialist feminists, etc.-for unity between Labour Party and non-Labour Party socialists. We will describe some of these later. These pressures are vital signs of the ways in which existing party political structures no longer reflect the reality of practical political alignments and struggles on the ground. The working-out of these pressures into new forms of socialist organization are held back partly by overdue respect for the old political structures and partly by the assumption that the only viable political form of organization independent of the Labour Party must even at this early stage be that of an alternative party. This latter assumption immediately precludes the possibility of a political alliance-more than unity on a single issue, single movement basis-between socialists inside and outside the Labour Party. In order to see the urgency of such alliances, to understand the problems they would be up against within the Labour Party, and to see how far the positive experiences of unity within, for example, the socialist feminist movement, have a wider application, we will look at three main problems concerning the Labour Party and socialists within in.

Labour Governments, the Labour Left and the Vision of Socialism

First is the way that Labour governments have killed the idea of socialism as a practical alternative and the way the .message of the Labour left has in effect got tarred the same brush. The first point is generally accepted socialists in or close to the Labour Party. John Bohanna, a shop steward at Ford, an active socialist, not in the Labour Party himself but from a strong Labour family, sums up way this has happened, what this has done to commitment of ‘ordinary folk’ to the idea of socialism:

Ater the war there was a vision of a real alternative, and not j among the activists. The people of this country returned a Labour government with a great majority in the hope that a new, and time positive, socialist society would be born. I don’t find anything like these feelings now. People just think its a choice between bad and the very bad, Labour or Tory. After the war the government did seem to carry out its manifesto promises, and what people thought would be the first concrete steps towards a just and fair society. All to the good. But by 1959 the Labour leaders: now out of office, began to argue that inequalities of class were no longer a problem. They tried to write Clause 4-for social ownership of production-out of the party’s aims. Yet to many party members this clause was the proof that it could be a party for the working class. Although these leaders were unsuccessful at time, ever since, the leaders’ policies have repeatedly conflicted with working-class needs. It’s very difficult now to see what good will come of a Labour government. Of course people can see some good fellers and women in the Labour Party; real tryers like Eddie Loyden. But they see the likes of them getting battered all the time so those that aim for socialism within the Labour Party become no more than the likes of Callaghan and Wilson in the eyes of ordinary folk. And everyone’s bleedin’ disgusted with them.

This moving away by the Labour Party (if it was ever anything different) from what people expected has meant that there are, less activists around the Labour Party than in my dad’s day. It’s strongly felt that there’s little worth in fighting for the Labour Party. So people take the easy way out and grab what they can; ignoring the wider fight for a society in which we can all have the opportunity to live a more fulfilled life.

Perhaps things will get revitalized now we are forced to fight the Tories. I can sense something on Merseyside. Attempts are being made by the left to set up industrial branches of the Labour Party in Fords and elsewhere. Its a good way of getting political debate on the shop floor. But I don’t hold out much hope of change in direction of the whole party. Still, although the arrow towards socialism has one shaft it has many heads, and socialists in the Labour Party are one of them.

What about the people who seem to get ‘battered’ all the time, those people busy organizing in the Constituency Party General Management Committees and at the party conference to turn the Labour Party into a real socialist party? Why cannot they reach out to would-be Labour voters and potential socialist activists to persuade them not to be misled by recent Labour governments? For these governments, it is argued, are not the real thing.

Somehow this argument has lost a lot of its appeal. The Labour left have not, since Bevan, been able to establish a credible and distinct identity from the leadership in the eyes of most working-class people. They’ve become compromised by their long association with the policies of the party leadership. In fact they often come off worse, for their message comes across via Labour Party debates as ‘more of the same’. Left and right have always tended to appear as just different ends of a spectrum of policies on state intervention. The debates between left and right in the Labour Party have normally been about more or less nationalization, and more or less state control.

This used to be enough to establish a distinct vision of socialism. Before the war when Labour’s ability to control the state machinery had not been tested, and when the state’s distance from production and economic life gave credibility to the idea that the state was a neutral instrument to be used for socialist ends, their vigorous advocation of Clause 4 provided a clear strategy and programme for socialism. It made sense to think of the state as ‘a sword atl the heart of private property’, as Bevan put it. People knew~ what socialism was, and in general they saw the Labour left” as its true representatives, even if they were wary of supporting them. But for the past thirty years people have” lived through and been brought up in an economy in which~ the state plays a leading role, differing little from govern- f ment to government. In this situation the policies of the Labour left, for slightly more state intervention (though not’ even as much as Bevan used to argue for) on more sociaI1, criteria, do not add up to an inspiring or even distinct alternative to the policies of the right.

A fresh and convincing vision would require a move away from the traditional framework of Labour Party debates, away from the issue of what an elected Labour government would do with the state-as if the state were as malleable as putty. It would require a move to confront the reality of private capital’s extra-parliamentary power and the constraints of international trade, both of which make the state so resistant to the good intentions of many parliamentary socialists. It would require a strategy for organizing the extra-parliamentary powers of working people, on an international scale.

The ‘Bennite’ Labour left which emerged out of the debris of the Labour governments of the sixties made some tentative moves in this direction by establishing ad hoc links, while in opposition, with a number of shop stewards’ committees and by pu tting greater stress on some form of workers’ control. But, at a national level at least, they are inhibited from developing this further. They are trapped in the contradictions created by their belief that the. way to implement their policies is to win power within the Labour Party. F or this they have to concen trate their energies on winning positions within Constituency Parties, getting policy resolutions to conference, and winning the support of trade union leaders in order to get conference support for a change in the constitution and in the leadership. At a local level much of this might well be compatible with developing the extra-parliamentary power of workers’ organizations. (Although it would require some improvisation on present forms of constituency organization to make close links with socialists outside the Labour Party possible.) But as a consistent national strategy it comes up against the purely electoral priorities of the party, the pressures for unity when the conflict comes to any kind of crunch, the reluctance of trade union leaders and officials to encourage or even allow industrial action on political issues-other than in defence of normal trade union organizing and bargaining rights.

In this way then, the left within the Labour Party cannot establish an independent credibility with-or even a means of communications to-the mass of working people. It is tied to a platform of politicians to whom fewer and fewer people are in fa..ct listening with any hope or expectation.

Can They Change It?

Is this just a temporary problem, a result of the left’s cramped, ineffectual tactics while the party was in government? Could there come a time when socialists in the Labour Party could remove the consensus politicians from this platform and turn the Labour Party into a socialist party able to confront the power of private capital through extra-parliamentary as well as parliamentary action? This is an important issue, for there are many thousands of active socialists, some actually members of the Labour Party, some just paying their political levy and canvassing election time, who are instinctively reluctant to create political alternative to the Labour Party. They feel that as the party of the working class, it could, as workers’ struggles grow and political consciousness is heightened become a socialist party. ‘The left has nearly won control over the NEC; with just a few more heaves we’ll have won control of the Party.’ Under the present government and with the struggle for succession to the Labour Party, leadership, these pressures for ‘one more go’ are intensifying.

Gertie Roche who has been active in the labour movement in Leeds for many years, in her union, community groups, the Communist Party and now the Labour Party sums up this feeling with a very cautious optimism.

I think history is made very slowly. People are slow to change their attitudes. They have an emotional involvement in something that concerns them and then it melts away. So I do not think [I the Labour Party will change quickly and do not expect very ! much from it. But people are pushing all the time. I watched the debate at the party conference today and we managed to get MPs made accountable for their behaviour. I think that’s a big step forward. There’s so little accountability in the public services.

I get angry when ,some of the people I work with on different issues attack me for being in the Labour Party. At least when you’re in the Labour Party you get listened to which is more than used to be the case with the Communist Party. I think we should stop fighting each other’s allegiances and get on with the issues. There are so many things that I find I can work together on with socialists and others outside the Labour Party-on women’s liberation, the cuts, supporting a centre like TUCRIC (Trade Union Information and Research Centre) in Leeds. I support the emphasis of these people on extra-parliamentary action. That’s very necessary, although the small amount of support you get can sometimes be depressing.

Before we talk then about the sort of socialist organization we need, and the contribution which feminism can make to it, we need to see the blocks which its development will come up against as far as the Labour Party is concerned, and why therefore organizing for socialism will eventually be based outside the Labour Party.

There are many factors which weigh heavily against the possibility of changing the Labour Party: the power and autonomy which the British Constitution gives to the moderate parliamentary leadership, the overwhelmingly electoral priorities of the party, and so on. It may seem as these problems could be overcome if the Constituency Parties won more formal power, giving them more say in electing the party leadership and drawing up the manifesto. But there is a virtually insuperable problem for the left in making much real headway even in this constitutional direction. The problem is inherent in the origins and basic make-up of the party. It lies in the overwhelming dominance of the unions, and the power of the trade union leadership to determine how this influence is exercised. Of course different unions will move to the left on specific issues and vote for generally left motions at conference. But to change radically the direction of the Labour Party would require trade union leaders, under pressure from their members, to actively commit themselves and a Labour government to overthrowing the economy and the state in which, despite Tory threats, they have such an established role and status. Of course we hope for a time, when the majority of trade unionists will be actively involved in achieving such a transformation, dragging their leaders behind them. But such mass socialist activity could not be built up, unless there were already a socialist organization giving a lead in the factories, offices and communities.

In this way, socialists trying to change the Labour Party are caught in a vicious circle. To turn the Labour Party into a socialist party there needs already to be a socialist party. And there are insuperable constraints to possibilities of such a party operating within the Labour Party. The constraints are especially strong as far as any left grouping making an open organized alliance with rank and file trade unionists against right-wing trade union leaders. At the first signs of such a threat the trade union leadership is able to use its power within the party, directly or behind the scenes, to mobilize rules and disciplinary powers against the left. This was one of the problems facing the Bevanites in the fifties when they gave support to dockers rebelling against the pro-Gaitskell T&GWU leadership. Benn and his supporters have similarly faced the wrath of right-wing trade union leaders when they have made common cause with shop stewards through unofficial channels. The left rarely resists such threats because to take on openly the trade union leadership in this way would jeopardize all their short-run ambitions of winning control over the party. This contradiction is likely to become increasingly apparent as the smouldering resentment and frustration of trade union members with their leadership flares up out of control.

The Communist Party’s national strategy of pushing the Labour Party leftwards is weakened by the same contradictions. For although it has the organizational independence to build up left oppositions within the unions, its considerable success in this is blunted by depending too much on national left leaders like, in the past, Scanlon and] ones who offer the illusion of a short cut to a left Labour government. In a few important localities, however, left Labour constituencies and left groupings in the unions are sufficiently strong and autonomous from national Labour and trade union leaderships to create an impressive and powerful alliance. South Yorkshire is the best-perhaps the only-example. Such a local alliance is one of the many heads of the arrow which John Bohanna talked about earlier. But it is not the basis for the single shaft.

Why Don’t They Split Then?

However we cannot leave the matter like this: we cannot leave the Labour Party socialists to stew in their own contradiction while we hurry away to build a separate party in the hope that one day they’ll~see the error of their ways. That would be to ignore all the important points of agreement between socialists inside and outside the Labour Party; and the strength which can be gained from ways of organizing that provide for both joint action and sharp debate.

Historically, in Western Europe any new socialist parties with a degree of mass influence have been created out of splits within a pre-existing mass workers’ party. However in Britain this scenario is slowed. down and blocked by the peculiarly ambiguous and deceptive structure of the British Labour Party, with its appearance of being the united, democratic party of the workers’ movement, giving full and free expression to every socialist view, concealing the reality of power in the hands of a well-protected parliamentary group, shielded as it is by the trade union leadership. Mainly because of its link with unions the Labour Party does not have the normal character of a political party. It is a hybrid of a radical party made up of individuals committed to a radical programme, a powerful trade union lobby, and a parliamentary leadership of professional consensus politicians. For while the left is continually being defeated by the practice of every Labour government (the professional consensus politicians), defeat and failure never seem conclusive, for, after all, ‘we won at conference’, ‘we are in control of the constituencies’ (the radical party)-it’s just 11 matter of putting on more pressure next time, of making the parliamentary leadership accountable. But the powerful trade union lobby working behin’d the scenes, with varying degrees of unity, makes success perpetually elusive. People are always leaving in disgruntled little groups, when they’ve had enough, and when one issue, entry into the Common Market, incomes policy, the cuts, etc.,. is ‘the last straw’. And many are no longer joining, because trying to change it, after fifty years of failure, seems a dead end, and there are better things to do. But these same people carryon paying the political levy, voting Labour and canvassing for Labour. Most of them could not really imagine setting up an alternative political party unless a major split took place in the Labour Party, even though they may be involved in all sorts of campaigns and projects which have little significant support from the Labour Party.

Some socialists wander in and out of the Labour Party, not out of any enthusiasm and hope for national change but through the absence of any other adequate political framework and the existence of many congenial and leftwing constituency parties.

Val Clarke, for example, who used to be in the IS (SWP) is now very active in the local Labour Party near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, not ,because of any confident belief that the Labour Party can become a genuinely socialist party but because

When we came here and got involved in campaigns on industrial issues, housing, and education problems, virtually all the main socialist activists were in the local Labour Party. That’s where socialist policies on all these issues were being thrashed out. Being outside the Labour Party meant we got all the discussion and information second hand. We could not influence things. And it would have been impossible to set up any alternative left focus. In a sense there was no need to, any militant who was any good was in the local Labour Party. This may not be typical, I recognize that, but Labour Parties like this must be taken account of when we talk about alternatives.

This blurred, indecisive quality of socialist politics in Britain is partly a product of local variations and partly of the ambiguous structure of the party. But it is also reinforced by the fact that when it comes to who should represent them in Parliament socialists and other radical activists have little political choice. This monopoly that is reinforced by the present electoral system gives Labour MPs and councillors an important hold on socialist militants whose campaigns and struggles can often be strengthened by having allies within the political system.

If then Labour Party socialists are unable to turn their local socialist politics into an effective national strategy and socialist party, and yet if the inevitable postponement of the final outcome of debate within the Labour Party and the wider trade union movement makes conditions for an alternative party extremely unfavourable, how and from where will the sort of socialist organization we referred to earlier be created?

Filling the Vacuum

Ever since the growth of CND, and then the movements which grew up in the late sixties and early seventies among students, trade unionists, women, blacks, gays, and, more recently, youth, there has been a growing force of people, inside and outside the Labour Party, who are impatient with the fruitless reliance on a Labour government, who are organizing directly for control over political and industrial decisions, and who are contesting the state in almost every sphere. But, partly as a result of the ambiguous features of the Labour Party, partly because of the pro-Stalinist record and present-day lack of internal democracy of the Communist Party, and partly because of the sectarianism of the revolutionary left, these activists do not have a political voice which expresses their grass-roots strength. That is, we are without a sustained way of organizing beyond our specific oppressions and experiences. We lack the means to develop a general theory and programme for socialist change from these varied experiences. And we do not have adequate ways of convincing people of the wider political changes which need to be fought for if their specific demands and needs are to be met. Our fragmented movements and campaigns are that much weaker without this political focus and back-up. This will become more and more painfully obvious as a strong, determined Tory government makes isolated victories more difficult. Many of the socialists involved in such movements and campaigns are instinctively aware of these weaknesses. As a result, here is a growing tendency to develop and make explicit he wider political implications of whatever movement or project socialists are involved in. Some people thought that he pressure of the political vacuum on the left would draw much activists towards the banner of a new socialist party. Instead, it has tended to induce people to make the wider links, elaborate the more general policies and theories, relate the cultural alternatives, through a whole variety of industrial, community, and cultural organizations. In effect left-wing trades councils, socialist resource centres, socialist women’s groups, theatre groups, left bookshops, militant shop stewards’ committees often carry out, in sum, the functions of a socialist party but without the co-ordination and long-term perspectives of a party. It is as if the different parts of a piece of cloth-a political organization-were being woven creatively and with ad hoc contact between the weavers, but without anyone having a master plan. Though occasionally we need, from different points of view, to stand back and see where we’ve got to, where the cloth is weak and where the pattern is becoming blurred.

This sounds all very well, and perhaps a bit overoptimistic. Where are the signs of these developments? It is not a uniform picture and no one person could draw it. We can only outline certain indications from our own experiences.

In some areas, for example, trades councils have come to act increasingly like socialist alliances, taking up militant socialist positions, directly critical of the Labour and trade union leadership, and through -their subcommittees organizing together local women’s groups, unemployed youth, active tenants’ groups, socialist research workers, with the relevant local trade unionists. In Coventry, for instance, the Trades Council has played a leading role over housing in fighting the -council and private building companies, in giving practical support for the demands of the women’s movement, in. organizing anti-imperialist campaigns, in organizing anti-racist campaigns; and, more recently, in rethinking socialist policies towards state intervention in industry, in the light of Labour’s rationalizations and closures. The Trades Council in Newcastle has played a similarly political role, in addition, taking a strong stand against British imperialism in Northern Ireland. On Tameside in the North West the ‘Trades Council set up what began as a cuts committee but which for a period became the focus for all sorts of different issues-abortion, ~ti-racism, unemployment, and so on.

The Hull Trades Council is launching a weekly newspaper which is likely to become one focal point for socialist activity in the area. There are many other examples from trades councils throughout the country. The point here is not that trades councils have taken an occasional militant stand. There’s nothing new in that. What has developed in the last ten years or so is a pattern of trades councils which act pretty consistently as socialist organizations, as consistently, that is, as the limits of being a trade union body will allow. We shall return to these limits later.

Another indication of the strongly felt need to reach beyond our own problem and shape a more general political perspective is the development of widely supported socialist tendencies within the women’s movement and the gay movement which play an active role in trade union struggles, e.g., organizing contingents on the Grunwick mass picket, organizing against racism and fascism, and playing a leading role in fighting the cuts. Along with this, these groups have considerably deepened and extended Marxist theory and socialist policies.

There are similar, though less developed signs coming from a number of tenants’ organizations, in which there is a strongly felt need to make more effective links with industrial workers, and women’s groups. For example, there is the work of the Socialist Housing Activists Workshop which brought together activists in local and regional tenants’ movements with socialist research workers to produce the ‘R,ed Paper on Housing’, a set of proposals for socialist policies on housing that is being discussed in places where there is a reasonably strong tenants’ group, like Tyneside, Cardiff, Liverpool and Coventry. The activities and policies of the National Tenants’ Organizations also reflect a strong socialist influence, the effect of an alliance of socialists from different localities and different political tendencies.

Similar developments can be seen in organizations connecting industrial issues and the interests of workingclass communities. Since the late sixties there have been numerous local industrially-based organizations, formed over one issue but developing to take on many others, and acting almost like a political alliance for many of the activists concerned. For example, in South-East London an organization was formed from different shop stewards’ committees and union branches during the fight against the closure of A.E.!. Woolwich. Its purpose was to campaign against closures and redundancies in the area more generally. But very soon it was taking on incomes policy, racism, and all the other issues that socialists campaigned over at that time. As Jim Coughlin, its chairman, said

It really became a political focus at the time; local right-wing MPs like Mayhew and Marsh could see that. They did their best to stop us being represented at important meetings. But for a period SELAC [South East London Action Committee Against Closures] provided a very militant forum and propaganda organization.

In Speke, on Merseyside, a few years later, the Speke Area Trade Union Committee (SATUC) brought together industrial and community-based militants to fight on the single issue of no. redundancies on the Speke estate, but the committee got involved in other matters as well.

Maureen Williams, a member of SATUC describes its origins, political potential and the problems it faced:

It was set up in early 1975 as a direct outcome of the fight to prevent the closure of a local factory. From there we got involved in a wide range of disputes in Speke where jobs were at stake and we were asked to help. Al it developed SATUC took up wider issues. We had speakers on Chile and Portugal and sent delegates to conferences on these issues. After a year or so members of the committee actually got involved in fighting a rent rise and joined a community picket of the town hall. This was very different to when I had first raised the issue and been met with disinterest or considered diversionary. Within eighteen months members were prepared to fight-even if only as individuals and not as representatives of -;heir organizations. SATUC also got involved in organizing conferences on health and safety at work and unemployment.

Late in 1977 our activity began to diminish. As a committee we were totally dependent on whether or not a fight was going on on the industrial estate. If workers did not fight redundancy we couldn’t. In a sense we fell between two stools. On the one hand we were too much a trade-union-based and -orientated body, with delegates and finance from branches and shop stewards’ committees, to carry on as a militant alliance when active support from the branches began to dwindle. On the other hand we were too unorthodox to get support from trade union officialdom. Many trade union officials were outright hostile to us.

SATUC did have potential as a political alliance. Various socialist organizations were in it, left Labour, IS, Big Flame, as well as unaligned ‘lefties’, but to develop in this way we would have had to clarify our relationships to the Labour Party, the trade unions and the shop floor. [The Garston Labour Party (and many local union branches) are left wing and we needed to work with them rather than appeal’ as a complete alternative.] We also would have needed to reassess ourselves as ‘political’ rather than militant to protect jobs’. Neither of these items was ever seriously on our agenda.

Another radical movement in which many people are developing and extending a socialist perspective and organizing more closely with working-class organizations is the movement of radical technologists and environmentalists. This ‘movement’ covers a multitude of sins as well as many creative and highly political advances. While some have remained interested only in individualistic improvements in the quality of middle-class life, others like the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, the Socialist Environmental and Resources Association have become increasingly concerned to link their critique of capitalist technology with the working-class organizations which alone have the power to fight for alternatives. The initiative of the shop stewards in Lucas Aerospace in drawing up and fighting for products which used and modified modern technology to meet social needs and to enhance rather than destroy the skill of the worker was an important catalyst in this.

This initiative by the Lucas Aerospace Combine Committee is itself an illustration of new ways in which activists are building on their own resources and organizations to meet the new political needs that no single socialist organization fulfills. The combine committee brings together trade unionists from all sorts of political traditions but it was, and still is, faced with the problems of structural, technological unemployment to which no one political organization has an answer. The idea Of fighting around specific proposals for socially useful production, for skill-enhancing instead of skill-reducing work came from a belief in the political power of independent combine committees. That is, the power of shop-floor and technical workers to take on management over the highly political issues of investment, the purpose of production, and the nature of the labour process. Of course no combine committee can take on these issues alone. The Lucas Aerospace stewards make this clear in the introduction to their plan where they deny the possibility of ‘islands of socialism in a sea of capitalist exploitation’. But the principles> behind workers’ plans for production according to need have been taken up, modified and developed by other shop stewards’ committees; for example, in power engineering, in so~e sections of the armaments industry, to a small extent in shipbuilding, the rubber industry, and elsewhere. And th,e tentative beginnings of organized links between these shop stewards’ groups is taking place.

Another rather different process of politicization has been going on among Marxist academics, many-but by no means all-of who·m are increasingly sensing the need for their work to be engaged with socialist, political, community, and industrial organizations. There is a sense of unease about the sort of theory produced without the discipline, the stimulus and the constraints of interaction with political movements. Discussions at the Conference of Socialist Economists have come increasingly to concern issues of strategy and working-class politics; many of its members on a local level are working with trade unionists, tenants’ and women;s groups. The History Workshop Journal explicitly sees its work as closely related to the wider socialist movement; it gives special support to, for example, locally-based publishing projects, like Strong Words in the North East, Centerprise in East London and others in Brighton and elsewhere. These local publishing projects have begun to recover and inspire critical working-class writing as part of the tradition of workers’ self-education through which working-class people develop their consciousness and creativity. State research is another example of the growth of research and writing with a political urgency and purpose. State Research is a collective of journalists and researchers which investigates policing, intelligence and the military. Through a bi-monthly publication it spreads its findings to the activists who come up against these parts of the state, arid to the wider media, sympathetic MPs, etc. New Left Review in its debates on nationalism,revolutionary strategy in the West, socialist opposition in the East and on the substantive implications of materialism has served to highlight fundamental problems facing the development of a coherent socialist practice.

The women’s liberation movement has been an important catalyst in many of these moves towards a richer unity of theory and practice. Its insistence on theoretical work which is accessible and relevant to the growth and strengthening of the movement has produced a selfconsciousness about the political purpose and practical process of theoretical work which was rare. A recent editorial in Fem£n£st Rev£ew, a theoretical journal produced by a collective within the women’s movement reflects this:

In our first issue we said that our intention in publishing Feminist Review was to contribute to the political development of the women’s liberation movement by providing a space where ideas could be discussed and information exchanged. To do this we stressed the importance of the accessibility of the material we publish; but accessibility isn’t just a question of language and presentation, although these are very important issues. Equally important is the process of discussion between readers, contributors and the editorial collective.

Feminists have taken these sort of principles into many of the projects just mentioned above, with good effect.

An important consequence of this ad hoc politicization is that many so-called ‘sectoral’, ‘single issue’ or ‘merely local’ campaigns, movements, and organizations have been created on the basis of consciously socialist values. This does not mean that such organizations are, or necessarily will ever be, fully socialist in their policies or ways of organizing. What it does mean, however, is that behind specific labels ‘the women’s movement’, ‘alternative press/bookshops’, ‘tenants’ action groups’, local and national ‘shop stewards’ combine committees’, ‘trade union and community resource and research centres’, there is often-not always-a wealth of ideas, experiences, and ways of organizing which are of direct political relevance to the creation of a socialist organization.

Socialist Alliances

But before we discuss how these advances can best be built on, we need to be aware of the limits of _ this ‘organic’ way in which the political vacuum has been filled. The problems vary, but they all become apparent at times like the last five years when there is no massive tide of class struggle sweeping everything along with it. At such times the trades councils and shop stewards’ bodies which have tended to become more of a left alliance than a trade union organization are in dangeI’- of becoming isolated from their mass membership, and consequently unable, when things come to a crunch, to show any real industrial strength. Trades councils do not suffer so obviously as a result, because they have long-established roots which can survive failures and isolation. Though they do come up against attempts by the TUC to restrict the scope of their activity, and sometimes the national TUC can enlist the support of the Regional TUC to keep the trades councils in check. The unofficial industrial bodies we have mentioned like on Merseyside or in South-East London are more dependent on being able to deliver some practical goods to the membership. If the organization begins to move too fast, more at the tempo of a political organization, it loses .its base. And unless the leading members are conscious of its potential as a political alliance, it loses its rationale and disintegrates, as happened on Merseyside and in South-East London. In addition, because such bodies are essentially trade union bodies, they cannot usually allow for the political debate and education necessary to develop a united political strategy and programme. This in turn leads to political misunderstandings, the predominance of personal hostilities, splits, and falling away of political initiatives.

Within campaigning movements like the women’s movement, the tenants’ movement, radical technologists, and so on, the problems facing socialists are different. They mainly concern the difficulties of socialists making the necessary links beyond their own movement with other trade unionists and other community-based groups when they are not in any party or, when, as is usual, the links need to go beyond the small circles of existing socialist parties. The same problem arises in elaborating policies which need to take account of wider working-class interests beyond the movement initially concerned. For example, socialists in the tenants’ movement on Tyneside are trying to develop pressure to extend the direct labour force. For this they need to make contact with building workers and trades councils and sympathetic sections of the Labour Party. The activists irivolved can see very clearly how very much easier and more effective the whole campaign would be if the socialists involved in all the different organizations affected were in the habit of meeting with each other, discussing policies, reaching some common understanding of the problem and its wider context. As Kenny Bell, one of the activists involved, put it:

For tenants as consumers the issue of who does the repairs and the building and what control tenants have over it is really important. In this way they have a clear interest in expanding the direct labour force. But there’s been so much rundown of the direct labour force in Newcastle, jobs are so insecure, wages and conditions so bad, that many building workers are glad of a job in the private sector. So creating the links, putting over the argument about the potential of direct labour isn’t easy. We need to be working closely with socialists in the building trade. But it’s difficult to make that contact out of the blue. It is much easier if there is some tradition of wider contact between socialists in the different unions and campaigns. The Tyneside Socialist Centre’s network has been useful and also the various resource and information centres. The socialist centre has also been helpful as a way of clarifying ideas about strategy. But we need to build a lot more on that.

Similarly with, socialist feminists in the National Abortion Campaign wanting to make contact with hospital workers and other trade unionists. Small numbers of socialists across the sectors are in organized contact with each other, through being in the CP, the SWP or the IMG, but this nothing like covers even the majority of the activists who would/could be politically united and be very much stronger for it.

Experience of these sorts of problems has, in several localities led to socialists from different campaigns, movements, unions, and from different political tendencies, creating local s9cialist alliances, forums, or centres. In Hounslow, for example, the need to provide a focal point for socialist activists in the area arose from the experience of the thirteen-month occupation of Hounslow Hospital. The occupation had demonstrated to many of those involved the possibilities of a new way of organizing; Karl Brecker, Chairman of the shop stewards’ committee at the West Middlesex Hospital, describes this:

To sustain such a long occupation we. had the problem of raismg people’s political awareness, and therefore of taking political discussion beyond minimal agreement on action, without allowing sectarian differences to destroy the cohesion of the occupation. It took a long time to work this through; but gradually people learnt to debate with, and yet respect, each other’s views. It wasn’t a matter of yielding your opinions into a mish-mash. And gradually people learnt how to speak and discuss in a nonsectarian way. They had to. There were a lot of hospital workers at the meetings, not in any political organization, who would not tolerate the sort of rejection of people’s views because they are members of another organization, which often goes on in sectarian circles.

The other thing that was important was the ways that all the time we had to break down hierarchies and make people feel involved. The whole occupation would have disintegrated unless the normal divisions such as those between ancillary workers and nursing staff were broken down. We had to make sure people did not feel put down, that their personal problems were recognized, and that they were given support. The influence of the women’s movement was important here.

The occupation became a base; a centre for other campaigns and struggles in the area. It became a sort of school for activists, learning how to do leaflets, and so on. It was used by the firemen in their strike, by the NUJ, also by some Labour Party socialists who stood in the local elections on a no cuts, no unemployment platform.

Many of us felt that with all this that we had created something different, it stronger way of organizing, and we did not want to lose it once the occupation was over. We thought we should build on this experience modestly. That’s why a group of us set up the Hounslow Socialist Forum in the third week of January this year. We hold meetings every fortnight, on topics which put local issues into a broader context. Forty of fifty local activists turn up from all the main socialist organizations as well as a lot of independent socialists. People use it as a place to get support for campaigns and local disputes. We meet at the Labour Hall. We have not thought about premises, or anything more ambitious yet. We need to move slowly, as people get used to working together and we define the areas of agreement and debate.

On Tyneside in 1975 a socialist centre was set up initially for educational, cultural, debating and general propaganda purposes. But since the centre was bringing socialists together-albeit in a haphazard way-it began to take on a more practical role: organizing anti-fascist leafletting, helping to provide support for strikes, initiating local campaigns and debates around political issues such as the deportation of Agee and Hosenball, the oppositions in Eastern Europe, workers’ plans for socially useful production, British investment in Southern Africa and support for the Zimbabwean Liberation movements. Then for a year or so it became overwhelmed by the practical problems of maintaining and improving the only socialist bookshop and book service in the area. But it is now re-emerging from this, stronger perhaps as a result of the very practical, material responsibilities that this entailed, and able to strengthen united action against the Tories and to extend debate about policies and strategy. Its constitution provides for the representation of affiliated political tendencies (e.g., the SWP, and the CP), trade union organizations and other movements on the Centre’s co-ordinating committee. It has regular general meetings of individual supporters and representatives of organizations. Working groups take more specific responsibility for the Centre’s projects, like the bookshop, the bulletin and meetings.

In Islington a similar sort of alliance and forum was created out of a conference called by the Islington Gutter Press in early 1978. The conference was attended by activists in local campaigns against racism, on women’s groups, in unions (mainly the public sector) in the Labour Party, the CP, IMG, SWP and Big Flame. This conference elected a Socialist Centre committee which now organizes regular Sunday evening debates, educational meetings, and socialist cultural events. At their last conference they decided to look for premises, and also to play a more active role in supporting strikes and campaigns. Lynne’s piece in this book describes this in more detail.

In Hackney too, meetings of socialist and radical activists to learn from one another and discuss common problems and different views have begun. The existence of a local alternative paper, bookshop and cafe as well as a trades council building with a pub and meeting rooms help in communicating this development.

There are many factors which could make for these local socialist alliances. In some areas like Tyneside and Merseyside, Clydeside, parts of Yorkshire, the steel towns, and indeed, increasingly, just about everywhere beyond Westminster, the stimulus could be the real threat of decline and collapse.

In most such areas some kind of official campaigns against the threat usually grind into motion. But after ten years or more of decline in some regions, many socialists have learnt from the campaigns of the past. They have witnessed the demoralization which comes from relying on these leaders, from the futility of their lobbies, their token demonstrations, and their reluctance to agitate and argue among the membership and the community for something more. Such socialist activists are increasingly aware of the need to come together to take more militant initiatives and to elaborate policies of more a socialist content than the ‘grab what we can get. for this region’ sort which often dominate official campaigns. Alec McFadden, a former member of the Communist Party, now in no political organization, Treasurer of Newcastle Trades Council and an organizer of the Trades Council Unemployed Centre summed this up from his own experience:

We can’t just unite vaguely against the Tories like we did under Heath and leave it at that, like the TUC is talking about now. Though that was necessary, it wasn’t enough. It meant we weren’t ready to deal with the policies of the Labour government, we had not got alternative policies and we had not got the strength to act independently when MPs, officials and the like wouldn’t fight.

We need to get real socialists together in the area, to build upa fight, yes, but also to prepare for the future. It can’t be a matter of uniting for unity’$ sake. If it’s just that, we’ll be back to the same sort of Labour government as before. We’ve got to prepare alternative policies. I learnt that from the closure of Tress [part of Fairey, owned and closed by the NEB of which McFadden was AEUW convenor] and from the failure of the campaign to keep Vickers Scotswood open. The socialists involved should have got together more and worked things out, to give a lead.

The way such alliances might come about will vary tremendously according to local conditions. Sometimes under the pressure of the onslaught from the Tories and the hopelessness of official campaigns, the local branch of the strongest left-wing organization or left Constituency Labour Party might set an alliance in motion. It might break with the normal customs, and making its discussions the forum for socialists, in other smaller organizations or unaligned.

In other areas the experience of successfully working together over some nationally-initiated campaign might lead people to seek ways of establishing that unity on a more permanent, wider political basis. Or there might already be some form of uni ty, a local socialist newspaper, a shared resource centre, a bookshop, socialist club or centre, which can be built on to create a more· active political alliance. Whatever the process, the signs are that .conditions for such alliances-ad hoc and loose though they may be-are especially favourable at a local level. There are many reasons for this, one is closely related to what was said earlier about the nature of debates within, and splits from, the Labour Party. Because of the endless postponement of decisive conflicts in the Labour Party; because of the poverty of political debate within most constituency and ward Labour Parties; because of the absence of a mass circulation socialist paper, the left in Britain has not been through a common process of debate on strategy and programme-even of the kind which precedes major splits from socialist and communist parties on the Continent. As a result there is a lack of agreement or even discussion of strategy and programme between any sufficiently strong groupings at a national level to determine nationally the framework of unity at a local level. At a local and regional level however there are plenty of opportunities, first, for unity around the major practical problems of the day; also around socialist projects like bookshops, socialist trade union information and research centres, resource centres, alternative newspapers. So many of these projects are quite beyond the resources of anyone political organization. (F or example, the SWP could not sustain any socialist bookshop outside London and Glasgow, although they tried.) Their success, though, is vital to the creation of a popular socialist party. There is a peculiarly restrictive notion of unity which holds back revolutionaries from creating these sort of alliances. It is argued that if unity goes much beyond specific issues or within particular unions then it will either suck away our energies in endless argie-bargies with other left groups, or it will be so wishy-washy as to be useless and passive. Yet we have found in the women’s movement and among socialist feminists that it is possible to have a single unifying framework within which we unite to act where we agree, e.g., abortion, equal pay, nurseries, fascism, and other issues, and within which we have useful debates over things on which we go our own ways. This can work if you are not defensive about debate and argument and do not see it as ruling out unity On other issues, etc. The unity will have to be vague and loose to begin with. But in developing the basis for political unity one vital function such alliances could perform would be to provide exactly the forum for political debate and education which is so lacking nationally. Without the (re)building of this groundwork of political debate and socialist culture, related to problems and differences encountered in practical struggle, national political co-ordination is bound to flounder.

The pace at which these local socialist alliances coalesce and develop, the dialectic between them, and, emergence of a national socialist organization, cannot be laid down in advance. A revolutionary upheaval in Italy or Spain, for example could rapidly extend people’s horizons for united socialist advance far beyond the local or regional level.

The Revolutionary Groups

Isn’t this all a bit ramshackle? Wouldn’t it be much simpler, clearer and ultimately more effective to encourage everyone to join one of the revolutionary groups/parties and hope that through proving itself in action, this organization will eventually encompass the activists, some of whose diverse projects we have just sketched? The problem with much a solution is not ‘Leninism’ as a theory of the class !1ature of the state. Nor is it what follows from this in terms of a need to destroy the coercive state machinery and establish a new form of democratic political power. Neither s the organizational condition for such a transformation, a mass revolutionary organization based in the movements of he working class and other oppressed groups in question. The problem is rather- with the way in which most of the existing revolutionary groups seek to establish such a mass evolutionary organization. One of the main problems lies in the leap they make from a belief in the need for mass socialist organization to the conclusion that they are the infant stage (SWP), or the nucleus (IMG) of such an organization. They therefore take on the essential structure and features of the central leadership which they hope one day to be. Like the Elizabethan children who were dressed up like full-grown adults, the result at worst is absurd, puffed up and very constricting! Perhaps the problem can be more seriously elaborated by applying Marx’s basic principles on the relation between revolutionaries (Communist) and the rest of the workers’ movements.

As he puts in in The Communist Manifesto:

They [Communists) do not setup any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement … The Communists are, on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the wor king-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The major revolutionary’ groups in Britain tend to make the mistake of assuming that it is they alone (and their close contacts) who are, in Marx’s phraseology, the Communists. In fact they are merely a small section though with a specific and important contribution to make-of those who are, at the grass-roots, giving a political lead to workers and other oppressed groups. The mass of ‘Communists’, are the socialist activists whose diverse projects and struggles 1 have just sketched. Some are in other workers’ parties, some are in none, but, as already argued, they are none the less socialist for that. In this way then the ‘vanguardist groups’, though alert, in abstract, to the dangers of substituting for the class, tend all the time to substitute themselves for the diverse emerging vanguard of that class.

This criticism applies most directly to the Socialist Workers Party. The International Marxist Group, a much smaller organization, but none the less, an influential one, does not make such a claim. It conceives of itself as merely :he nucleus of a future party which will be formed through 1 lengthy process of united fronts, splits and fusions with )ther organizations. This leads them to put more emphasis m projects aimed at unifying the left (e.g., the initial launching of Socialist Challenge around a basic programme >n which many socialists not in the IMG could agree, similarly with the idea of a united electoral alternative to he Labour Party, organized through ‘Socialist Unity’).

However, their attitude to the way in which a correct programme is developed weakens their ability to make these projects anything much more than ways of slightly widening their own ‘periphery’ of contacts and supporters. ‘heir model is premised, correctly, on the belief that the creation of a socialist society is, above all, a conscious political process, not an outburst of irrationality or the unintended effect of thousands of uncoordinated decisions. ‘here is therefore, they argue, a need for a scientific pproach to politics. So far so good. Their model, however, f such a scientific approach is based on far too monistic

view of scientific development. For they do not lerely fight for their own beliefs as we all do; they also ~gue that their own internal processes of democratic iscussion, and decision-making are the processes through hich a scientific socialist politics is elaborated. Of course, ley assume in this that their members learn from their involvement in wider struggles and campaigns. But the process of synthesis goes on within the IMG. Such a notion flies in the face of the way that all other scientific ideas develop, that is, through a process of more or less structured contestation and of diverse but ‘co-ordinated experimentation. Of course the development of a science of practical politics differs from other sciences in that its practice does not involve artificial experiment but human struggles. But in a way this makes the substitution of the processes of theoretical/political debate and practice of one political tendency for the possibilities of co-ordinated debate and action of the wider socialist involvement,even more disastrous. It seems to flow from the assumption that there is one timeless organizational interpretation of the concept of democratic centraJism. Ironically, it is Ernest Mandel, a leading theoretician of the Fourth International (of which the IMGis the British section), who points to the real political significance of this concept when he says:

The essence of democratic centralism is not really organizational, but political, or bettex:, socio-political. The immediate experience of workers [we should add ‘and other oppressed people’-H. W.] is always partial and one-sided. Real workers, as opposed to idealized ones, are active in one factory, in one branch of industry, in one city. The lessons they draw from their immediate experiences are therefore always partial. The spontaneous activity of the working class, while it may be quite varied, is always fragmented and therefore always tends to lead to fragmented consciousness. The essential function of democratic centralism is to overcome that fragmentation by centralizing the experience of the working class as a w}:lOle, drawing the proper lessons from it, and organizing a strategy that can unify the proletarian front in its battle for state power. [Revolutionary Marxism Today, New Left Books, London, 1979, p. 222.]

No single organizational form is implied by such a process. Neither is there any justification for making the logical leap from a belief in the IMG’s ideas to the conclusion that it is only through the processes of democratic discussion in the IMG or the Fourth Interrlational that an adequate programme can develop. The forms of organization which provide the most favourable :onditions for a scientific socialist politics will vary. For !xample the forms required in a period when the majority )f socialist activists have come from a variety of different lOlitical traditions and experiences rather than mainly ‘rom, say, a split in a previous mass party (as was the case vith the Bolsheviks who came from a split within the ~ussian Social Democratic Labour Party) are likely to be ‘ery different from those required when there is the sort of lolitical homogeneity which is usually produced by such a ommon political experience and debate.

The extent of the pluralism of political tendencies and Durces of socialist inspiration and vision then will ary, as with all forms of scientific development. When a ominant theory of socialist changes collapses in the face f economic and social problems that it can no longer “plain or resolve, and when no alternative has matured I previous contestation with the dominant view, then iere is likely to be tremendous variety in the attempts to II the vacuum. Especially when the objective problems “e’ urgent and there is a periodic groundswell of mass :tivity in response to them. This, in effect, is the situation e have described earlier, with the decline of left formism. Out of this diversity can then come new lutions, greater agreement, and greater strength. But only

we create a new way of organizing through which to rry out sharp, principled debate between the diverse lditions and move men ts, and at the same time to achieve lity in action on the major issues of today. We are not arguing that revolutionary groups should dissolve themselves, as some have done in Italy, into an illusory idea of an undifferentiated mass movement. In any mass socialist organization \\~ich is eventually created out of the fragments, there will always be different political tendencies with some degree of national organization of their own. Among other thiJlgs, these tendencies are in a sense carriers of the revolutionary traditions of the past; they have kept those traditio~s alive in periods where there was no wider layer of socialist militants. Learning from, debating with and developiJIg the traditions which these revolutionary groups apply to contemporary problems will be vital to the process by which a organization is woven together.

At present the componentS of such a mass organization are far from reaching the,political cohesion and the clear understanding of the lines of march to which Marx refers, and for which he has providea the markers. The revolutionary groups could be impoitant catalysts in overcoming these weaknesses; they have ~t least mulled over the lessons for the present, of the marJ1es of the past. But their ideas are inevitably limited. They ~ave been able to develop only the bare bon~s of a strategi and programme for socialist revolution in the modern capitalist world. As small organizations emerging onli in the last ten years from discussion groups, their polities are, not especially ‘advanced’ on most of the issues which have come to the fore in these ten years in new and complex ways: sexual politics, the contemporary institutions of ideology and bourgeois culture; the massive extension of state intervention in production; the extent and form of the recession; the new forms of technology and its impact on workers’ living and working conditions, and so on. This is partly because of the major gulf between the last period when revolutionaries in Britain could achieve any significant hearing-the 1940s-and the period 1968 onwards when thousands of militants began to search again for socialist alternatives. When this happened, the revolutionary organizations were not in any position, either in terms of organizational strength or in terms of the richness and breadth of their analyses, to provide an overall political leadership. The result has been many centres of socialist initiative and analysis, of leadership, of political growth.

The unwillingness of the groups to fully recognize this and adopt a more humble political stance towards these many foci of socialist activity has reduced their capacity to influence and catalyse these initiatives towards a more co-ordinated political movement. It has also reduced their capacity to work together.

Once these groups had, as they saw it, made the leap from being propaganda/discussion groups to being fullyfledged democratic centralist parties, or embryos of such, the contradiction between their grandiose conceptions of themselves and the reality of political life on the ground, in the localities and in the various movements and struggles often became too much for many members or possible members to accept. I remember sensing this very sharply when I was a member of the IMG while being very involved in the women’s movement. At first we in the IMG used to prepare our ‘interventions’ as if we really could, and had a duty to, give an overall political lead to the movement. This Soon seemed too absurd to carry on, not because we were a politically isolated vanguard trying to convince a mass of ‘backward elements’, but because all sorts of other socialist feminists had developed better ideas and initiatives along similar lines. Gradually our rather ridiculous pretenslOns were abandoned by many of us active within the movement. We continued to benefit from the sustenance of the political tradition and analysis which the IMG represented and from the contact it provided with socialists involved in other activities. But for us this became a basis for working on one or two issues without any wider pretensions. In this way we probably made a much more valuable contribution, and we worked much better with other socialists and feminists. But we were not acting as the revolutionary leadership of the women’s movement, neither were we aspiring to it. We just became one of, or part of one of, the many sources of leadership and initiative. Neither were we acting according to strictly democratic centralist norms. Sometimes it would be a help to convince the IMG to take a national initiative, e.g., support for the Working Women’s Charter. Sometimes we would just work out and test out in the movement our own ideas and then feed them back into the IMG. We did not feel bound by the discipline of the IMG; on anyone issue we felt as if we might just as well work with another political tendency if their ideas seemed better. We felt accountable to IMG only in the sense of the comradeship of being accountable to people with whom you share ideas and with whom you carry out collective projects. In other words, so long as the IMG recognized its limits as one socialist grouping among many, and always likely to be so, then being a member of it was a source of strength. But whenever it puffed itself and the Fourth International into something more, into an embryonic party with all the pretensions that go with it, then it became a problem.

This over-estimation of their own importance became a problem not only for the real contribution which members organizations. If the two groups controlling the papers were to drop- their party pretensions and recognize that they are botn tendencies in essentially the same political movement, re sources could be combined-and with others, like Big Flame and unaligned revolutionaries-to produce both an effective popular socialist paper and a paper of debate and analysis for the left. Such papers, not tied to any particular group, would also benefit from a much better relation with the independent socialist and broadly radical newspapers which are produced in numerous localities.

The Relevance of the Women’s Movement

All this Concern with the Labour Party, with local socialist alliances, with national socialist papers must at first sight seem along way from feminism. But women have a strong vested interes~ in the success of the socialist movement. And after organizing ourselves for some years we feel we’ve got things to say about all the wider organizing and agitating which needs to be done if we are to create a truly democratic and egalitarian society.

The movement that feminists and socialist feminists have succeeded in organizing may not have achieved many effective legislative; and industrial changes. But it has increased the strengti} and confidence of thousands of women, both those working in the home and those earning a wage, both in white’collar unions and in manual unions. It has drawn into political activity many of the millions of people who have always considered politics wasn’t for them, it was for the politicians. In other words, the women’s movement, in all its diverse ways, through all its different political tendencies, has helped to give women the power to organize ourselves to fight for control over the decisions by which our lives are shaped. And that surely is what soC£alist organ£zatz’on should most centrally be about, for all oppressed and exploz’ted people.

Some might say that the objectives of the women’s movement are very specific and limited, that, for example, it takes on the state in only marginal ways and over issues on which some concessions can and will be granted. Whereas, by contrast, a socialist organization has a far more fundamental, difficult task. The corollary of this is that the organizational forms of the women’s movement may be appropriate for its specific tasks but organizing for socialism requires something very different. Not much can therefore be learnt from feminism. In a crude sense this contrast has some truth in it. A socialist organization will have to take on many issues and problems which do not now confront the women’s movement. We are not holding out the organization of the women’s movement as a complete model on which the left should base itself. But the women’s movement has made an absolutely vital achievenent-or at least the beginnings of it-which no socialist :hould ignore. It has effectively challenged, on a wide cale, the selfsubordinat£on, the acceptance of a ~econdary ole, which underpins most forII}s of oppression and :xploitation. This may not be confronting the state-though he women’s movement does plenty of that-but unless such

self-subordination is rejected in the minds of men, of the nemployed, of blacks, gays, and all other groups to which ocialists aim to give a lead, there will never be much chance f confronting the existing state with a democratic socialist alternative.

The ways in which the women’s movement is achieving lis then have a wider relevance. From the point of view of arning from the women’s movement it is the values which underlie our organizations which are important. The particular organizational forms have relevance only to the specific purpose they were created to fulfil. The values underlying our ways of organizing have been ones which pu t emphasis on local control and autonomy; on small groups within wider co-ordinating structures; on local centres and social and cultural activities; on relating theory to practice; on discouraging forms of procedure and of leadership which make others feel inadequate or uninvolved; on recognizing that different views on strategy and tactics come from some real experience and are worth listening to and discussing. Sheila and Lynne explain these ways of organizing in detail and point out the contrasts with more traditio1}al ways.

These values have created a groundwork on which national and regional structures, co-ordination, theoretical debate, and self-disciplined national action around an agreed programme of demands have been built. They have led to the creation of a movement with many focuses of initiative and leadership and a movement which combined unity with the existence of many different political tendencies. Such unity is not a matter of complacent tolerance. After periods of conflict and mistrust, the movement builds on the distinct contributions of different political views. For example, the movemen”t gained a lot of its ability to influence the trade unions, to get trades councils to set up women’s subcommittees, to involve union branches in actively campaigning for the demands of the movement from women in or close to the lMG and the CPo Recently Women’s Voice has been a strong influence in many areas in adopting a more aggressive, outward-going approach in many of our campaigns. ,

These ways of building a movement are not specific to women. They have been a necessary part of the women’s movement because the subjective experie~ce of political organizing, whether it is ‘off-putting’ or involving, whether it builds up your sense of your own power to change things or makes you feel powerless, is so vital to whether or not women become active. Distant national structures over which you feel little control, formal procedure which does lot seem to achieve anything, rigid notions of the correct .ine which suppress hesitant disagreement and questions, :heoretical debates which do not shed light on practice, :olidarity based on abstractions with little commitment to :ach other-none of these could have moved women to :ast off their passivity and self-subordination. And this .robably applies to a lot of working-class men as well.

There are many lessons to be drawn from the women’s lovement which would help us as socialists to create tructures, arrange meetings, debate with each other, plan :l.ctics, take decisions in ways which draw new people into )cialist activity, and which keep them involved far more ffectively than in the past. Another shift which the lessons f the wornen’s movement would produce would be a -eater respect for initiatives which people are already tking in a socialist direction. I have tried to show in this !ece how important this recognition is at the present age of creating a more co-ordirtated socialist movement It of the fragments. It has been the experience of the omen’s movement which has made us sensitive to these eas of growth. Finally, the women’s movement, at its :st, has taught us how to unite as a movement on the aJor practical issues of the day while debating and respect- 5 each others political differences and frequently agreeing

differ and go our own ways without jeopardizing the 19le movement. If the left could achieve that, at least at a local level, we’d be a long way towards showing people that there could be more than a choice between the ‘bad and the very bad’; there could be real alternatives which they will have a hand in shaping.


Thanks to all those friends and comrades with whom I have argued about and discussed these issues, especially those in the Tyneside Socialist Centre.

Beyond The Fragments: Feminism and the Making of Socialism (A Local Experience) by Lynne Segal

April 5, 2013 Leave a comment

This article was originally based on a talk given together with Sheila at the Islington Socialist Centre in August 1978. Since the first edition of Beyond the Fragments I have rewritten sections of it. The sympathetic comment and criticism of the first edition by my friends and comrades in Big Flame and by other independent socialist feminists have been of invaluable assistance to me in clarifying some of the ideas which appeared rather sketchily in the first edition. I am very grateful to all those who participated in this learning process with me.


Certain political ideas and experiences are always more fiercely and critically debated than other on the left. The debate is usually confined within certain orthodox frameworks of discussion. The need for a revolutionary party and programme, the relation between party and class, and the nature of the working-class road to power, are among these classic debates. As the theses pile up on these important debates, the actual experiences of people as they consciously, and less consciously, participate in the struggle for a better life can disappear from history. And that is most unfortunate.

I believe we can learn useful, if limited, lessons from the activities of a group of people struggling for socialism, fighting for feminism, within their own small groups in one local area. I am writing as a woman with a libertarian feminist history, living in Islington since 1972. Islington is an inner suburb of London. It does not have any large industrial base, workers are mostly employed in the public sector, or in small factories. Like me, many people who live in Islington don’t work there. My political experience has been as a community activist; it is not based on the workplace.

I will be trying to draw on my experiences in the last seven years, not just in the women’s movement, but also as part of the libertarian left in London. It is a subjective account,. but I hope it will raise general issues concerning women and revolutionary politics and the problems we face. I was lucky in that I wasn’t around in England in 1969 and 1970 when the reaction of the whole of the left to women’s liberation was derisory and dismissive. Though I do clearly remember Sheila’s books being dismissed by left colleagues of mine at work, and declared both diversionary and reformist.

In 1970 a group of women organized a demonstration against the Miss World contest; some were arrested, and they later produced a pamphlet which explained what they had done. And this was just one of the things I remember that influenced and inspired me in 1972-because that pamphlet Why Miss World? not only talked of the humiliation of women as sex objects, but also of the lack of confidence and fear these women felt mounting the first protest against their own oppression. It wasn’t just that women felt frightened to protest politically, but that most of us found it difficult to speak publicly at all; we were used to relating passively and dependently to the world as presented to us by men. We were used to being dominated by men: it was hard not to want to be. And it really hasn’t been easy to change this, either then or since.

For me, in many ways the ideas of the libertarian left and feminism did seem to be in harmony. I will try and explain this. First of all, they both seemed new. The libertarian politics of the seventies did not really owe much to the anarchism of the past. Though anarchism has a very long history, as old as Marxism, the student radicals of the 1968 generation were in the main not radicalized through the efforts of the ‘organized’ libertarian and anarchist groupings. I know this also from personal experience as I was a student anarchist in Australia in the early sixties but I took me a few years to begin to understand the political Ideas that came to prominence after May 1968.

Libertarian politics were more of a genuinely spontaneous upsurge of ideas which drew their inspiration from many different thinkers, from Marcuse, Che Guevara and the early Marx, to Laing and Vaneigem.(l) This upsurge was a product of capital’s period of boom, when everything did seem possible, when in the Western world capitalism’s main problem seemed to be how to keep buying all the goods it could produce. T~is led to the reaction against pointless consumption; ‘consume more, live less’. The emphasis was on the quality of life in capitalist society and this is why psychological writings seemed important, as did those of the young Marx when he spoke of the effect of alienated labour on the individual spirit and saw the division of labour itself as a stunting of human potential.

To those who had become active in 1968 it seemed a time when anything could happen. Looking back on it, we could say that from Vietnam we drew the lesson that American imperialism, despite its technology, was not invincible. Though I’m not sure that we were aware of this at the time, we only knew whose side we were on. We certainly felt politically inspired seeing a small nation fighting (th Beast’ to the death. From the mass workers’ struggles which occurred throughout France in 1968 and in Italy in 1969, people ,drew the lesson that the working class was prepared to fight for a better life, and that it had not been bought off by consumer durables. Students, for example, were inspired by the thought that they had a political part to play, and could act together with industrial workers, as happened in the worker-student alliances of May 1968, and the worker-student assemblies in Turin in 1969. So class struggle was once again on the agenda, and the class militancy which continued in Italy and in Britain in the early seventies showed how difficult it was for the ruling class to keep a grip on the situation in a period of economic boom. That the optimism of the early seventies and the militancy of workers’ struggles which inspired us then, have not been able to survive the capitalist economic recession of the mid seventies is something 1 will return to later on.

After 1968 the emphasis among the new largely ex-student libertarian left centred on the following issues. First, autonomy-which is not the same as individualism, but meant to us taking control over your own life. Libertarians believed that people could act to change the quality of their own lives; they were more than just the passive tools of historical forces. There was a deep suspicion of any organization that claimed to do things for or in the name of the people. ‘Power to the People’ was one of the slogans we were chanting, as we watched our friends arrested on demonstrations, or were hauled off ourselves. As we saw it, we were the people, up against the repressive forces of the state, in our attempt to change our lives now. This meant that we were slow to form any alliances with others in our struggle, whether it was to seek support from the organized labour movement or the organized left, or progressive forces in local authorities or the left of the Labour Party. We saw them all as intrinsically reformist and hostile to our attempts to control our own lives. This wasn’t inconsistent with their response to our activities.

Secondly, personal relations-you’ve got ‘to live your politics’. We argued that our social relations now must reflect or ‘prefigure’ the social relations we want to create after the revolution. We said that the desire to change your own life and the world about you now is an important part of building for socialism in the future. So we opposed the Leninist position that you couldn’t change anything under capitalism, you could only build an organization to overthrow it. We thought that there would be little reason for people to join a revolutionary movement unless it brought an immediate improvement in the quality of their lives, as against those who believed that you could make a split between public politics and private life. We were critical of those who might participate in some form of socialist politics and yet remain authoritarian and uncritical of their relation to their wives or their children at home; or to others in their work situation. We had in mind, for instance, the male militant who left his wife at home to mind the children while he did his ‘political’ work. We wanted our political activity to make room for those with children, and also to include the children.

Thirdly, you organize around your own oppression. You begin from your position as a woman, a squatter, a claimant, etc. This was linked to attacks on the nuclear family. We read both Laing and Reich, and were quite certain that we could never return to the restricted and restricting lifestyle of our parents. We saw that oppression, the power of one person to dominate and control the life of another, could be as much a part of personal social relations as of economic social relations. This led to an emphasis on collective living, collective childcare, and the setting up of nurseries.(2) The family was seen as the producer of neurosis and ‘the policeman in the head’ which leads people to collaborate in their own oppression.

Fourthly, the rejection of vanguards and any hierarchy of struggle. We rejected the idea that the industrial working class must be the vanguard of revolutionary struggle. Libertarians argued that all areas of life were of importance to revolutionaries. The traditional left was seen as only concerned with people at the workplace, not in the community. But libertarians always argued that people who worked at home, minded the kids, etc., were doing as important work as that done in the factories. This was expressed theoretically In a rejection of the Trotskyist left’s permanent illusion that capitalism was on the point of collapse, saved only by props like the ‘permanent arms economy’, as IS used to suggest.(3) We felt this underestimated the role of the state in stabilizing the economy, not just through economic measures such as investment policies but through the hegemony of state ideology, and ideas expressed at every level. We saw the capitalist state as far more resilient and flexible than much of the left had previously argued. So libertarians developed richer theories of the role of the state, and its hard and soft forces of repression, not just through the police and the army but via education, health, sex role conditioning, etc.(4)

Before most of the left we: emphasized work with youth. Though left groups did have their youth sections,libertarians were interested in practical work, setting up youth houses, youth newspapers, adventure playgrounds and free schools. This youth work was not only practical but also prefigurative in its stress on young people being able to experience a different situation and develop a sense of self-determination.(5)

We worked mainly in community politics, starting community papers, squatters’ and claimants’ groups, and trying to organize around housing. ‘Decent homes for all’ was the slogan we used, aiming in particular at the failure of local authorities to provide housing for single people.
The squatting movement, was reduced in strength as people could no longer bear to keep on moving, keep on facing the bailiffs, as they were bought off by councils with licensed short-life houses, and the number of empty houses declined. But it did nevertheless win certain limited victories. In Islington it eventually forced the council to change its policies and begin providing housing for single people: It introduced the notion of ‘shared singles’ to the housing bureaucracy, to add to their ‘family units’. (This can’t simply be dismissed as ‘reformism’ since struggles were not fought in a reformist way.)

This was the time of the ‘gentrification’ or middle-class take-over of working-class .housing in inner city boroughs like Islington. Landlords conspired with estate agents like Prebbles to ‘winkle’ tenants out of their homes_ There was a campaign against Prebbles by the Islington Tenants Campaign which picketed Prebbles’ office for many months until a historic high court judgement against them ~led that all non-industrial pickets were illegal. We did extensive research on the activities of the big property sharks like Raine, Freshwater and Joe Levy; and how the housing system worked in general until we felt we could understand what was going on.

We resisted all notions of revolutionary leadership. Living our politics meant sharing skills and breaking down all authoritarian relations now. We emphasized the creative aspects of politics, that it should be fun, and not dreary. All bourgeois social relations around work, the family, ‘pleasure’, possessions and relationships were challenged. This was perhaps why we supported those most oppressed by bourgeois society, prisoners, the homeless, claimants, etc., and believed that you could only fight back if you shared the material situation of the most oppressed. ‘When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose’ the tough ones sang along with Dylan. But misery does not always equal militancy, and those most oppressed are sometimes so smashed that it’s hard for them to fight back at all.


Many of these issues which I’ve described as central to libertarian thought were also central to feminist thought.

First, the autonomy of the women’s movement was the crucial issue for women. Though left groups saw this as divisive, we were aware that their programmes of formal equality for women could conceal the actual subordination of women in their own organizations. Women had to organize their own fight against male domination; it could not be done for them.

Secondly, feminists always emphasized the importance of the personal and the subjective, the need for a total politics. By this we meant a politics that saw the links between personal life and the oppression of women at home, and the exploitation of men and women in paid work. Women demanded changes in the social relations between men and women now. We wanted to help to break down the isolation of women in the home, and to begin to change ourselves. We had to change ourselves, because the whole ideology of sexism ensured that we had always seen ourselves, and were seen by men, in ways which made us feel inferior and allowed men to dominate us. We spoke of our sexuality being defined and controlled by men, as well as the suppression of women’s sexuality in most hetero-sexual relationships. We supported the demands of lesbians, and the importance of women exploring their own sexuality. We knew that women’s sexual passivity and sexual objectification by men was linked to our feelings of powerlessness.

Thirdly, as feminists we organized around our own oppression. We also criticized the nuclear family, seeing it as the seat of women’s oppression. But we were not simply concerned with the repressive ideological role of the family but saw ,it as the place where woman do unpaid work, thus creating the basis for our social subordination in general. We argued that the way in which domestic labour, childcare and work are organized today will all have to be changed before there can be any real liberation for women. We saw that the Marxist analysis of capitalism and class struggle had not proved itself an adequate theoretical tool to conceptualize these changes. While the traditional left was slow to realize the anti-capitalist nature of women’s liberation, feminists were able to show how it was the unpaid work done by women in reproducing labour power and servicing the workforce that was essential to capitalist social relations. ‘Women in labour, keep capital in power’ was one of the slogans painted on the wall at the first women’s liberation conference held in Oxford in 1970.

More thoroughly than the libertarians, women developed new theories of the welfare state.(6) Women as mothers came into contact with the state more directly than men, in the form of welfare, nursery provision, education and health services. So it was more urgent for us to analyse the control of the state over our lives. We were aware that it was the inadequacies of these social services that created the burden borne mainly by women today. And we were aware that the provision which was available to us was not what we wanted. For example, women took up many issues in the field of health care. We demanded control over our reproduction. We exposed the way that doctors, who are mainly men, treat women’s specific illnesses with contempt. We publicized the way millions of women are regularly prescribed tranquillizers and other drugs by doctors instead of them examining the social causes of many women’s problems. Indeed, feminists were able to establish that the medical profession saw femininity itself as in some way pathological.7 The feelings of passivity, dependence and powerlessness, felt by most women today, are rightly seen by psychiatrists as opposed to mental health. But instead of these aspects of feminity being attributed to the oppressive socialization of women, reinforced in everyday life, they are wrongly seen by most doctors as natural to women. These are only a few of many such issues.

Fourthly, the women’s movement also rejected ‘stageism‘-the idea that women’s liberation could be put off until after the revolution.(8) We argued that our struggle against male domination, or patriarchy, was as central as the struggle against class oppression.9 We said that women’s oppression could not be reduced to class exploitation, that though interconnected with it, it pre-dated it and could continue after the smashing of capitalist class relations.

It was women who not only introduced many new issues into socialist politics, but also developed new forms of organization-ones which would enable us all to participate more fully in revolutionary politics. We introduced consciousness-raising groups, where all women could learn that their misery, isolation and feelings of inferiority were not simply personal problems but common to nearly all women and the product of material and ideological conditions. We introduced the small group as a more supportive and equal way of discussing things and working together. We wanted the experiences of all women to be respected and the movement to grow on this basis rather than through following general principles. We criticized the formal public meetings of the labour movement and the left where inexperienced and less confident women (and men) felt unable to contribute.

We were opposed to all forms of leaderism, and struggled for equality in all our social relations, because we were aware that the forms of dominance and subordination we were fighting could easily remain invisible, as they had been before. We knew that our struggle began with the need for women to believe that what we could contribute was important and valuable. Through writing, poetry, music and film we began to create a new feminist culture, as a part of changing our consciousness and because we knew that men have dominated every aspect of our life, including all areas of culture. We worked locally in the community, at a time when most of the left, apart from the libertarian left, was not interested in this.

Many of these ideas on the form and nature of political activity and organization can be illustrated by looking at some of the things which the women’s movement initiated in Islington in the early seventies. In August 1972, a group of women opened the first local women’s centre in York Way. This was one of the first women’s centres anywhere in England. The idea of having a centre was in itself different from the way in which most of the left organized. A leaflet from Essex Road Women’s Centre explained:

The Women’s Centre grew out of a need to meet and talk to other women about the particular problems that we all face. Many of us feel anxious that we alone are responsible for the problems we have-like loneliness if we’re stuck with our kids all day and can’t get out, finding a decent place to live, worrying about our health and our kids’ health, or worrying about work and keeping a home going as well.

By meeting and talking to other women we found that we are NOT alone in our problems. And when we find that we do share experiences, it’s not only a big relief, but it makes it easier to try and change things that need changing-whether it’s the planning of the street you live in, or whether it’s about contraception or childcare, schools, problems at work, etc. We think that women are in a really strong position to change things-because they are close to the root causes of the problems of day-to-day living, both in the house and at work.

So the idea of the centre was, firstly, as a place to meet and give real support to any women who were in some way trying to break out of their isolation, and, secondly, to allow us to build our confidence and strength that we as women could change things.

At York Way we began one of the first women’s health groups, taking up many of the ideas of the women’s health movement in the States, We were also active in the family allowance campaign, demanding that it be increased and paid directly to women. At about this time the Wages For Housework campaign Was started and began to demand wages for women working in the home. We agreed that it Was valuable to emphasize that qomestic work is work, important work which is undervalued and invisible because it is unpaid. All this was a revelation to some people on the left.

We too saw woman’s unpaid domestic labour in the home as central to her oppression, and also central to the reproduction and maintenance of the workforce (labour power) and thus to the maintenance of the capitalist social formation. There was a theoretical debate here, though we were not all aware of it. Wages For Housework, following the analysis of Mariarosa Dalla Costa.(10) argued that women’s work at home was not only essential to capital as we said, but it also produced surplus value-that is, it directly added to the profits which capitalists could make out of their labour force. Because if there were no housewives male workers would have to pay someone to look after them, and thus would demand higher wages. We thought that this whole debate was perhaps not important, because whether or not housewives and other domestic workers produced surplus value, we were equally concerned to challenge the division of labour which consigned women to the home.

It was the pressures of housework, the double shift for ‘working’ women, and our general servicing role which were the major causes of women’s isolation and exploitation at home and at work, as well as of our low self-evaluation and status. So the Wages For Housework campaign seemed wrong at a practical level, because their solution would institutionalize the division of work in the family. (Then are now ideas to implement such a suggestion in Italy and Canada.) It also seemed wrong at a theoretical level being simply the other side of the economism of tradition a Trotskyism, which sees the only way to get power in that class struggle as that of fighting for more and more money through a wages offensive.

We began to argue generally for the Socialization 0 housework, for more nurseries, playgrounds, and so on Here it wasn’t just that we widened the areas of political activity in which the left had been active, in order t< include women's needs. There was also the recognition of the need to have control over any gains we might make.

For instance, in the demand for nurseries, we didn't just demand money from the state for more nurseries, but helped to create more community-based, non-authoritarian, non-sexist relations in the nurseries we helped to establish. Val Charlton describes this in her account of the Children's Community Centre in North London which was opened in 1972 after feminists had successfully battled for council funding:

We are trying to break away from the traditional authoritarian mode of relating to children and are attempting to offer them as many choices as possible and as much independence as they can cope with. All activities are made available for children of both sexes but it’s not simply enough to treat all the children equally. The boys have frequently already learned their advantage and are quick to make capital of it. There has to be positive support in favour of the girls, who are generally already less adventurous.(11)

Also in 1972 a women’s Holloway Prison Support Group was set up, to campaign around women prisoners. We picketed Holloway Prison saying ‘Free our sisters, free ourselves. ‘ In 1973 we protested over the death through fire of Pat Cummings in Holloway Prison. We knew that most women are not in prison for crimes of violence. Petty crime, SS fraud, prostitution, etc., are the main reasons for women being sent to prison-often simply attempting to fulfil their social role of caring for their families on inadequate means. Yet, women prisoners are notoriously violent, mostly self-destructively violent-cutting themselves Ip and smashing their cells. Used to providing the caring and affection for just a few people, women in prison face he possible break-up of their families and loss of their children. Women face this more than men because women end to support men more than men support women.

In this vulnerable position, official ideology can easily work to persuade the woman in prison that she is not so much ‘criminal’ as maladjusted or sick-another role which women in our society, through powerlessness and training into passivity, are more likely to accept. in line with this, we tried to expose the fraud behind the rebuilding of Holloway Prison as more of a hospital, creating even greater isolation for the women inside. Over 50 per cent of women in Holloway are on drugs, indeed drugs are the only provision which women can freely obtain in Holloway. The new Holloway Prison, which places even greater stress on the therapeutic rehabilitation of women, simply encourages them to blame themselves for the predominantly material problems which landed them in there in the first place.

But York Way was not a good site for a women’s centre. It closed in 1973, and in February 1974 we opened a new women’s centre in Essex Road. Many women’s groups, campaigns and activities started at that women’s centre. The most successful was probably the health group, which produced literature on women’s health, did pregnancy testing, provided a woman,doctor for advice sessions, learnt self-examination, took health classes with school children, collected information on doctors and their treatment of women, provided information on abortion facilities, and, more generally, argued for the importance of preventive health care rather than simply curative medicine. Less successfully, we wrote and distributed leaflets on housing conditions and the isolation of women at home with children. We supported women’s struggles for better housing, and some of us were active in squatting struggles.

By 1975 many campaigns were being co-ordinated by groups originating from the women’s centre. 1974 was the beginning of the various cuts campaigns against the ever-increasing public expenditure cuts. We began campaigning to prevent’ the closure of our local Liverpool Road Hospital, and fought hard for it to be kept open as a community health resource. Some of us were active in the Islington Nursery Action Group, visiting nurseries to help unionize workers and also successfully pressurizing the Council, into abandoning its attempts to make cuts in nurseries, showing how the cuts hit women hardest.

The campaigns for ‘more and better services’ emerged at the same time as the government pressure for cuts. It was in November 1974 that the first government circular came demanding cuts. And that’s when a general cuts campaign started in Islington, with its first meeting held in December of that year, initiated by a group of militants, some inside and some outside the Labour Party. As a broad front campaign it was supported by community groups like the women’s centre, tenants’ groups, public sector workers and, in particular, by the many council-funded community service groups like law centres, Task Force and the Neighbourhood Forums. This was perhaps the first time that we got some relationship developing b~tween the libertarian and feminist milieu and the labour movement. But at this time it was an uneasy alliance. It was never given my real support by the Trades Council, which even came out and attacked the campaign after it had held a day of action. This campaign did not last. Today with the left in a stronger position in Islington there is more hope for the new anti-cuts campaign which is being formed.

The National Working Women’s Charter Campaign was aIso started at this time, holding its first delegate conference rl October 1974. It was never very popular with us at Essex Road. This was because of the dominance of the organized left in the Charter and their wrangles over leadership, and also because it was very schematic, being simply a list of demands, and because it was concerned primarily with women in the workplace. Marxists had always argued that woman’s liberation would be achieved through her full participation in waged labour. In this way they were able to subordinate women’s struggles to class struggle. And it was also in this way that they were able to dismiss the importance of organizing with housewives or the struggles of those many women marginal to the wage system, for example, prostitutes.

The Working Women’s Charter, a list of ten demands which would improve women’s situation in paid work, was originally put together by a subcommittee of the London Trades Council. It was seen by some women in left groups as an adequate basis for socialist feminists to organize from. Though the demands did include ones around contraception, abortion and nurseries it was not an adequate platform for the socialist feminist current of the women’s movement to base itself on. (And there have always been socialist feminists in the women’s movement despite the different setbacks we have faced in our attempts to organize ourselves. )

The Charter’s inadequacy stemmed from its orthodox reflection of the position that women’s oppression is due to her unequal share in class struggle. The demands did not even criticize the sexual division of labour, which is central to male domination. It is this sexual division of labour which ensures that even if women can go out to work they will in general have the lower-paid jobs and the lower-status jobs. The point is not just that women happen to be low paid, it is that they are overwhelmingly concentrated in ‘women’s jobs’. And these jobs which are available to women are low in pay and status precisely because they are ‘women’s’ jobS’.(12) The threat to male workers of more women entering a particular career, is that by their very presence in any large numbers, they lower the status of that work. The best-known example of this was the change over from male to female secretaries at the end of the nineteenth century.13 So even at work women are oppressed as much by their sex as by their class position.

The Working Women’s Charter was basically a trade union response to feminism, and it was good to get some response, but it shared the inadequacies of trade unionism towards women. Some of us did however support the Working Women’s Charter activities, although in fact local Charter groups interpreted and used the Charter in quite different ways-in Islington, women were involved in the local Nursery Action Group, in the Liverpool Road Hospital Campaign, in attempts to unionize workers at Marks and Spencers and elsewhere, and organizing a general meeting on women in Islington sponsored by the Trades Council. There were, however, many aspects of feminist struggle that the Charter could not incorporate. In 1975, the Working Women’s Charter was rejected by the Trades Union Congress conference. It had fallen between the two ~tools of feminist and labour movement politics, and in the ~nd could not survive.

In 1975 a local NAC (National Abortion Campaign) group was formed to fight James Whites’s anti-abortion bill. NAC was also organized as a national campaign. But once again many women were suspicious of the national structure, saying that it was not feminist. They saw it as dominated politically by the International Marxist Group ‘IMG), and objected to its main focus for activities being that of lobbying MPs, seeing this as reformist. Feminists often felt that any national campaigning structure gave women in left groups an advantage over them, in terms of determining policy, as they were more experienced in that form of centrally orgahized politics. This has always been a problem in the women’s movement, and one of the causes of the deep tensions between women in left groups and nonaligned women, even in the socialist feminist current of the movement. Outside of left groups we moved more slowly, each of us puzzling over the pros and cons of particular tactics, particular slogans, etc., most of us frightened to push ourselves forward, and therefore hostile to those women who already seemed to have all the answers on the questions of tactics and organization. Today I feel that, difficult as it is, we must all learn to overcome our fear of political differences and be prepared to argue through our politics.

But many women did become involved in local activity against the threatened restrictions on women’s access to abortion facilities, with stalls in the local market and elsewhere. We also organized colourful public protests against the Miss Islington beauty contest, describing the degradation, violence and restriction on women’s lives created by our status as sex objects for men. It· was especially when we challenged this area of men’s control over women, speaking of the daily rape and violence against women that we were most ridiculed in the local press and elsewhere. For it was here that we were most directly challenging the central ideology of male domination, a sexist ideology which not only attributes certain particular characteristics to women that enable men to dominate us, but also belittles and degrades those characteristics it sees as feminine.(14)

Together with the Arsenal Women’s Group and others we held a local conference to try to organize the women’s movement on. a local area basis. We were also actively involved in all the early socialist feminist initiatives at organizing in the women’s liberation movement. Many consciol’lsness-raising and study groups started at the centre, and a women’s self-help therapy group was formed, partly as a support for some women who had suffered severe emotional crises, but also because all the women involved saw mental health as an important issue. We saw that many of our deep anxieties and fears were a reaction to our powerlessness, and often because we could not receive any adequate nurturing from men. We were used to providing emotional support, but not to demanding and receiving it. This is behind the current emphasis on feminist therapy, and the creation of a Women’s Therapy Centre in Islington. We talked on women’s liberation at schools like Starcross, a local school for girls, and some women ran classes on women’s liberation for schoolgirls at the centre. A literacy class was set up for women. There was a group for women working in traditional men’s jobs, and, in fact, so many groups that I can’t remember them all.

But, despite all of the creativity and energy which originated from the women’s centre, it was always hard to keep it open to all women for more than a few hours a week, on Saturdays and Wednesday nights. And many women were only active in the centre for about a year, and would then drift off. It was often hard to get the new women who came along involved in the centre, and it was difficult to keep up any good communication between the different groups which did meet there.

Some of us wanted to obtain money for a paid worker at the centre in order to keep it open to co-ordinate and plan activities. But others rejected such an idea out of hand, believing it would be ‘selling out’ to obtain money from the local councilor the state, paving the way to our co-option by them. Women also feared that a paid worker would create a hierarchical structure. The first point came from our analysis of the state, which led us to see social workers, for instance, as the repressive ‘soft cops’ of the system. There seemed to be a contradiction between our emphasis on self-help and collective activity and the idea of state funding. Wasn’t the role of the social worker or the state-funded service centre to prevent people taking collective direct action to solve their problems by holding out the false promise of there being some individual solutions for people’s problems? But weren’t we just unpaid radical social workers anyway?

At that time we were less aware of the radical potential for militancy in the state sector workers, living out the contradictions of trying to provide a service for human needs while employed by a state tied to the profitability of capitalism. Many of these workers are very frustrated by the futility of their attempts to meet their clients’ needs. Some social workers, for .instance, were already referring people to squatting advisory centres and other groups committed to building struggles around particular issues. It is in the area of social services and the state that the threat to jobs through cuts and closures and rationalization can be most easily linked to wider possibilities for anticapitalist struggles, because they raise the question of people’s needs. Many health workers, teachers, etc., are aware that it is not just lack of resources that makes their jobs unsatisfactory. It is also the formal hierarchy and the rigid rules through which the state is organized that makes their jobs so difficult.

The current attack on the funding of so-called voluntary groups, for example, law centres, housing aid centres, and other radical advice centres is precisely because they have been able to provide the space for and have been effective in helping to organize struggles around people’s needs. The money that is being saved by such cuts is often quite negligible, the motivation for them is political. It may be true that these voluntary groups provided new jobs mainly, although not only, for the ‘radical professionals’, but I think that at Essex Road we were not as aware as we might have been of the contradictions over funding, and the possibilities of using it to ‘bite the hand that feeds you’.

With others I have thought more recently about some of these problems and think they need more analysis. The modern state is such a huge and complex organization, the situation being quite different from that in 1917 Tsarist Russia, from which so much revolutionary strategy derives. Then the state’s role was purely repressive, defending the interests of the ruling class. But the modern state has been formed by the ongoing compromise between the workingclass movement channelled into reformist political strategy and the capitalist class. The state spreads its tentacles throughout society. Nationalization, health care, education, care of the young and old, research, funding of the arts are some of the ways in which the modern state interpenetrates society in a way it never did before 1945.

For libertarians and many feminists, instances of the creeping hand of state control were everywhere, from community festivals to nurseries and old people’s homes. We tended to argue that the whole system was rotten, and it was useless to tinker with it. We were not wrong to emphasize the extent of this state control over our daily lives, but we were wrong to see the state in all its ramifications as a monolith, and not see that there could be contradictions in its development. This is particularly clear now that the Tory government is trying to sell off state services to the private sector as fast as it can – continuing the attacks on state welfare already initiated by’ the previous Labour government. Today it should be clearer that we must defend many existing state services, from the National Health Service (NHS) to school crossing patrols. It’s no longer simply a question of the overthrowing of the state, but of a strategy which fights for an expansion and transformation of the services it provides-not necessarily in a centralized form. This raises the whole issue of the nature of a socialist state, which we all need to think about, and which is crucial for us as women fighting the sexual division of labour which is basic to women’s oppression.

Today we need a more sophisticated analysis of reformism and the state, which, on the one hand, is not based on the traditional social democratic idea, and in a different way on the Leninist model, which sees socialism as nationalization plus state planning, nor, on the other, one which turns its back on the need for struggle to expand state provision. This means a strategy which both defends the welfare institutions of the state when they are under attack while arguing the need to go beyond them. On a small scale this strategy can be illustrated by the 160 women’s aid ‘refuges that have been set up over the last few years to enable battered women to escape from violent husbands. The National Federation Of Women’s Aid was able to obtain local state funding for refuges while insisting that the refuges should be run by and for women and should encourage self-help and independence. Similar examples, as Sheila shows, can be given of nursery victories where funding was provided and the people who fought for it retained control over the nurseries.(16)

But to return to my story, when our women’s centre was forced to close in late 1976, we had sufficient anxieties over whether we were going about things in the right way that few tears were shed. One woman, involved from the start, said, ‘That’s good, now we can start again, and build up another women’s centre.’ But we never did. For the next three years there was no broad-based open women’s liberation group in Islington, though we did have a national Rape Crisis Centre, women’s refuges, a NAC group, and other groups organized around particular issues as well as women’s consciousness-raising and study groups. Today there is a new women’s centre in Islington, but there is little continuity between our old women’s centre and the new one which is being opened. It is as though things are all starting again from scratch and I’m not sure that any lessons have been learned, or could have been learned, from which this new group of women can begin. Those feminists who were active around Essex Road have not become involved in the new centre, most of them saying, ‘Oh no, not the same problems allover again.’

Feminism and the Left

Meanwhile, the traditional left was belatedly trying to catch up with the energy of the women’s liberation movement. In particular they were impressed by the 40,000 strong pro-abortion march of 1975. They weren’t laughing at the ‘women’s libbers’ any more, though of course they did say we were all middle class, or at least that’s what their middle-class leaders were saying. I don’t feel in a position to give a complete analysis of the left’s position on feminism, but I want to give my impressions of the main left groups, ignoring the smaller groups and those that choose to dismiss feminism altogether.

The reason I want to look at the revolutionary left is not to engage in any form of sectarianism, but because as socialist feminists we accept that women’s oppression is an integral part of the capitalist system. As I’ve said, the subordination of women through the division of labour centred on the family is central to the maintenance and reproduction of the capitalist system of existing class relations of exploitation. But women’s oppression (like black oppression) is not simply just another aspect of class exploitation. All men do benefit from it, by having power over at least some women, however exploited they themselves may be. But we do realize that only a revolutionary transformation of capitalist society can overcome women’s oppression, class exploitation, and all forms of social domination. We know we must unite all those fighting their oppression with the struggle against class exploitation.

By the mid seventies, most of the Communist Party (CP) “Clid come officially to accept the need for an autonomous women’s movement. The CP argues that it wishes to make broad alliances with an autonomous women’s movement. Certain CP women have placed great emphasis on the importance of studying the ideology of women’s oppression, the ways in which women as well as men come to accept ideas of women’s inferiority and invisibility. They have also begun to theorize the role of the capitalist state as it organizes reproduction and maintains women’s subordination in the interests of the ruling class. Much of the official contribution of CP feminists has tended to be more of a theoretical and intellectual one, though many CP women do actively support NAC, and other feminist initiatives.

The intellectual contribution of CP feminists is consistent with the direction of the CP as outlined in their publication the British Road to Socialism. This direction encourages an ideological offensive against capitalist domination while doing little to build any form of mass working-class resistance. Indeed the CP often finds itself in the position of having to curb actual militancy, which potentially threatens its broad alliances with reformist leaders of the labour movement. For example, in Islington through their control of the Trades Council they have consistently failed to offer any practical support to the most militant industrial struggles which have occurred in the borough. And again, on the whole issue of unemployment they have failed to respond in any practical way to the five occupations which have occurred against redundancies, the largest being the occupation of Crosfields electronic factory in 1975 when 300 people were made redundant. They were also opposed to the industrial action of the Tyndale teachers in 1976 who were eventually sacked after a campaign was launched against their progressive education methods, supported by the Labour right of the council. These alliances are part of the CP’s general acceptance of a peaceful parliamentary road to socialism in accordance with what is now called ‘Eurocommunism’.

Thus women CP members could be given the space to develop an ideological critique whilst having little impact on their parties overall political direction. The Brit£sh Road to Social£sm does often mention the importance of the women’s liberation movement. But the political contribution of the women’s movement or of other autonomous movements as they ·affect the actual potential for a real revolutionary unification of the working class is not discussed.

Indeed, in the final analysis the British Road to Socualism does not depart from orthodox Marxist analysis. And this is an analysis which overlooks the significance of existing divisions within the working class, and the demands of the women’s movement and of the black movement that the fight against their ‘oppression must be an essential part of the struggle for socialism.

So the CP support for the autonomous women’s movement does not seem to have served to educate its leadership when they write:

Only socialism can overcome the basic contradiction from which every aspect of the crisis flows. Socialism replaces private ownership by public ownership. The basic contradictions of society are removed. [My italics. British Road to Socialism, line 465.]

It seems that CP women have been allowed to do what I hey wanted, while the CP leadership did what it wanted. Though even this situation of tolerance for feminism has begun to change within the CP today. As the CP and other left groups begin to scent the long-awaited revival of industrial militancy, feminists in the party will be told not Lo obstruct the ‘turn to the class’.

The International Marxist Group (the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International), does appear to have a more consistent theory and practice in support of the need for an autonomous women’s movement.

Their weekly paper, Socialist Challenge, now takes the question of women’s oppression seriously. But while (‘(aiming to support the women’s liberation movement in its totality, there is still a strong tendency to reduce women’s oppression entirely to class oppression. For example, in 1978 a centre spread in Socialist Challenge which argued for women’s liberation made no analysis of women’s oppression as distinct from class exploitation. It gave no analysis of patriarchy.

The point about this is that while the IMG are prepared to accept women’s right to organize separately, they don’t seem to accept what we have to say on the limitations of orthodox Marxism.16 The way in which they want to integrate feminism and socialism is by adding on ‘women’s demands’ to their existing programme, adding on demands for nurseries, abortion facilities, etc. But again they do not seem to see the need for feminism to transform the whole nature of working-class politics and the left.

As feminists we argue that we are not simply fighting together with men against capitalism as a more exploited section of the class. We are also fighting against male domination now, which manifests itself in all aspects of life, both within and outside of the working class. (Black people of course have a similar theory about their oppression.) So women are central to the struggle against capitalist social relations not only in the workplace but also in the home. We are demanding that men change themselves, that they change their relations to women, and to children, and take on some of the nurturing and caring work which women have always done.

And this is the way in which we want to transform the nature of working-class politics, and overcome the divisions within the working class. It is presumably because of our talk about everyday life, about finding new, non-patriarchal and non-authoritarian ways of relating to and caring for each other that the women’s movement has been dismissed by certain leading members of the IMG as a ‘cultural movement’. The analysis is that because we are not simply making demands on the state, we are not making ‘political demands’. In 1977, John Ross, who sees the women’s movement as a social movement which can make political demands, stated that the issue of women’s rights to abortion nly became political when it began to make demands on the state.I7 Such an analysis obviously would be rejected by most feminists.

So while the lMG has accepted the organizational autonomy of the women’s movement, and indeed have now set up women’s caususes within their own organization, 1 don’t think that they accept the political autonomy of feminism as adding a new dimention to the nature of class politics. The fact that we believe that women’s oppression cannot be understood simply within the Trotskyist analysis of ‘the historic interests of the working class’ does not necessarily mean that we as socialist feminists ignore the working class and fail to prove ourselves true revolutionary socialists. The fact that some of us may not have joined a revolutionary organization which we feel has not adequately taken up and integrated the insights of feminism does not mean that we are not a part of the struggle to build one.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the largest group in the Trotskyist tradition in- Britain and one which has broken from many orthodox positions of Trotskyism, does not accept the need for an autonomous women’s movement at all. Their basic attitude to the women’s movement is determined by the way they see themselves as the only ‘real revolutionaries’. This means that for the SWP, fighting for women’s liberation, like building the class struggle, is one and the same thing as building the SWP. If you accept the need for a revolutionary socialist perspective, then you join the SWP, they say. So they reject the need for either the organizational or the political autonomy of the women’s movement.

‘Class struggle is a form of warfare, and in warfare there has to be a single leadership,’ says Chris Harman from the central committee of the SWP, echoing Lenin, in What is to be Done? in 1902. So the need for any organizational independence of women is rejected. Women’s oppression is derived from capitalist exploitation, he argues, so they reject the need for a political independence for women organizing.18

When the SWP comes to write about the women’s movement, all that I have ever found are jibes about it being middle class. Thus Anna Paczuska, one of the SWP’s leading writers on women’s politics, dismisses the 1979 socialist feminist conference like this:

All we’ve got is a movement of middle class women, many in their thirties, polishing their memories for the glossy magazines, complacently surrounded by mortgages and monthly subscriptions to Which magazine … The movement is dying on its feet or rather in its Habitat armchairs. It is being choked to death by respectability, nostalgia and direct aid from the state and the Establishment. [Socialist Worker, 7 April 1979.]

The term ‘middle class’ is one of the favourite terms of abuse used by the SWP. Of course, they never bother to define the contemporary working class, or the position, for instance, of teachers. For the SWP, teachers are wor king class when they are in the SWP or are attending union meetings, but middle class when they attend a women’s liberation conference. I think that many workers would be surprised and insulted to learn that they have never had mortgages, magazines or comfortable furniture. It is true that we do need to distinguish a person’s class origin from their class perspective, but the SWP certainly makes’ no attempt to do so. As they are aware when it suits them, there is a real need to develop a new understanding of the working class which includes proletarianized white collar sectors such as teachers, technicians, etc. So why resort to mere hypocrisy?

In this piece and many others which have appeared in Socialist Worker the weekly paper of the SWP, and elsewhere, Anna shows herself to be not just ambivalent about but quite blatantly hostile towards the women’s movement. he is concerned to dismiss us and our activities altogether.

In a more recent article in which she is referring to the three of us writing this book, she comments:

They do not believe that the working class has the capacity or the creativity to win the struggle for women’s liberation. They have no trust so they separate off their struggles for themselves. [Socialist Worker, 18 August 1979.]

Here Anna is illustrating the SWP position, which 1 have referred to as the orthodox Marxist position, which takes no account of divisions within the class as barriers to class unity. Against this position, we argue that a strong and independent women’s movement, which seeks to understand and organize itself around the struggles of women, is a political necessity for changing the nature of the left and, more importantly, overcoming the divisions within the class and society.

Moreover statements made by Anna should not be seen as the voice of an individual-they represent the views on women of an overwhelming majority on the male-dominated Central Committee of the SWP. However, within Women’s Voice, the women’s magazine and organization started by SWP members,. the situation is more complex. The Central Committee of the SWP want Women’s Voice to be a ‘periphery organization’ of the SWP, organizing with working-class women, primarily in the workplace, in order to draw ‘the best of them’ into th SWP. However, many SWP women in Women’s Voice ar opposed to this position. They want a greater degree of independence for Women’s Voice as a sister organization of the SWP, and they do want to give mor;e importance to women’s struggles against all aspects of their oppression. Unfortunately, however, many of them still continue to dismiss the women’s movement as middle class and reformist, unorganized and unable to relate to working class women. It was this sort of attitude which led them a few years ago to organize a separate abortion demonstration after the official NAC one.

Contrary to this view, I believe that there are many women in the socialist feminist current of the women’s movement who do also want to locate their politics in the current situation and build a working-class base to the women’s movement. The SWP is not alone in holding this perspective, though they have perhaps done more about it. Although we may not get many working-class women along to our conferences and local meetings, many of the initiatives of the women’s movement in Women’s Aid, rape crisis centres, nursery campaigns, cuts campaigns like the one to defend the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in London, and others, clearly do involve working-class women. The women’s movement did mobilize in defence of the Trico women on strike for equal pay, and the Grunwick strikers who were demanding union recognition. Many feminists have been active in trades councils and tenants’ associations. We don’t deny that we have problems in developing a working-class orientation, but we think that it is politically wrong for Women’s Voice to dismiss the importance of the women’s movement and to deny what they have learned from it. Even the success of their new Women’s Voice magazine came after it began to model itself more closely on the women’s liberation magazine, Spare Rib, borrowing many ideas from that publication.

I also cannot accept the degree of workplace orientation of Women’s Voice which leads them still to accept a priority of struggle which places many of women’s central struggles against male domination at the periphery. Thus Lindsey German writes of women’s movement initiatives:

Working class women are related to in most areas where they are weakest (in battered wives’ homes or rape crisis centres) rather than where women are strongest (in unions and tenants’ associations) … [Socialist Review, November 1978.]

And ‘Reclaim the Night’ demonstrations, against the harassment and violence which women daily face in the streets, are referred to as ‘a “soft” issue’. There is an argument for considering where women are strongest. But in fact women are not strong in unions today, and are not getting any stronger, even, if their membership is rising numerically. We believe that the only way women in unions will get stronger is if they are supported from the outside by a strong women’s movement. It’s a dialectical process, which the SWP in spite of its Marxism, seem unable to see. Of course, ‘Reclaim the Night’ and NAC are helped by support from women in trade unions, and women in trade unions are helped by the support they can get from the women’s movement.

While Women’s Voice has shown itself at times to be effective in mobilizing support for women’s struggles, I think the priority which they place on recruiting to the SWP, and the fact that they accept the identification of joining their party with holding a revolutionary perspective, means that Women’s Voice could not itself become the focus for building a mass women’s movement.

What we have got to get right in the women’s movement, to confront the left and the labour movement, is the interplay between sex and class oppression. Not only are they both central, but they feed off each other. And they are not reducible either one to the other. Whereas the orthodox Marxist analysis puts class before sex, and Lindsey German writes: ‘The fundamental division is not between the sexes, but between those who produced the wealth in society and those who rob them of it’ (Socialist Review, September 1979) there are also ‘revolutionary feminists’ who put sex before class. They say: ‘Women’s revolution is the revolution. Sex struggle is the struggle .. .'(19) This is not the place to develop a critique of revolutionary feminism. Though I see a political theory which seems to write off half of humanity as a biological enemy as absurd. However, some of the issues revolutionary feminists have emphasized, those of rape, pornography and male violence against women are central to feminism and need to be taken up by socialist feminists and the socialist movement as a whole.

But I would argue now that it is not sufficient simply to talk of organizing around your own oppression, as libertarians and revolutionary feminists have done. For instance, although we are all oppressed as women, it is not true that we are all oppressed in the same way, even as women. Black and working-class women are oppressed in distinct ways, and we need to understand this in order to build solidarity amongst women. Without a more general perspective we won’t be a part of many of the most important anti-capitalist struggles today, struggles which involve women obviously, black struggles, anti-imperialist struggles, and the growth of the new working-class offensive that is needed in this period of ferocious Tory attacks on the working class. Feminists do need a socialist perspective, bu t a Marxism which does not base itself on feminism, which does not recognize that the division within the working class and society as a whole necessitates a strong and autonomous women’s movement, is not· what we call ‘socialist’. It will not liberate women.

Socialism in One Borough

The main left groups did not seem to have found adequate ways of integrating Marxism and feminism in their theory or practice. But by the mid seventies it was also becoming increasingly clear to me that there were problems and limitations in the political perspectives of many of us active simply within the women’s movement. Most of us did believe that full women’s liberation depended on the destruction of all hierarchical relations, of class, race, and sex. ‘There will be no women’s liberation without revolution. There will be no revolution without women’s liberation.’ The women’s. movement alone, however, didn’t seem to equip most of us with a full interpretation of modern capitalism, and the way things were moving in the struggle against it, both nationally and internationally.

A split remained between women’s politics which produced a clear understanding of personal relations and personal oppression in everyday life, and the politics of the left groups which seemed more able to produce an understanding of the world as a totality. This in turn reflects, of course, the traditional division between women’s concern about people and their feelings and men’s concern about practical matters and the big wide world. We could always take up the subjective side of struggles, but in some areas could not always go further than this. This was one of the reasons why towards the end of 1974 1 started shifting my energies more towards a local political paper, the Islz”ngton Gutter Press. This was a libertarian socialist and feminist paper which some of the women who set up the women’s centre had also worked on.

It was Our inability at Essex Road to get working-class women involved, as well as the fact that women who had established the centre were no longer enthusiastic about it, that led me to seek new political initiatives. But it had been the writings of, and the discussion in, the women’s movement that enabled me to get a clearer theoretical perspective on the world, or at least a real understanding of women’s subordinate place in it. Our activities at Essex Road did increase our confidence that we could contribute politically, and so we became more confident both emotionally and theoretically. I think this point is made more generally by the American socialist feminist Linda Gordon when she writes …

…once people do connect deeply felt personal problems to larger political structures, they often go on to make political sense out of the whole society rather quickly. This is- not merely hypothetical; many women in the last decade moved rapidly from complaintsaints about sexual relationships to feminism to socialism.(20)

Working on the Gutter Press gave us an understanding of the area we lived in. It took us several years to get to grips with the complexities of the local political scene. We began to understand some of the workings of the local state, and how local authority finance worked. We made more contact with local men and women. We learned more about housing problems in the borough, the various struggles for better services, the inactivity of the Islington Trades Council, and the activity of the small Labour left in trying to get more progressive policies adopted inside a Labour council.

We tried to make the links between the different struggles and activities we were reporting on; for better housing, and against the abuses of private landlords and property boom speculators, against the decline of local industry, for better education and for more space for youth, against racism, against sexism, against all welfare cuts and for control over services. We were not parochial in our approach to these issues, but always tried to place them ‘in a global perspective’ declaring ourselves interested ‘in what went on, in Hackney, in Haringey or even Haiphong’.

We had remained independent of any of the left groups because we didn’t want them to tell us what to do. We thought they were all authoritarian, hierarchical and male dominated. Though, of course, similar problems of professionalism and male’ domination cropped upcontinuously-on the paper. More importantly, we also knew that apart from Bjg Flame they. did not take seriously our politics which emphasized local work and attempts to organize on an area basis, which differed from their focus on industrial activity or particular national campaigns.21 We believed, and rightly I think, that their emphasis on recruitment and party building, and their reliance on launching national campaigns, could interfere with our attempts at sustained local organizing in a way which was open and sensitive to the particular activities and needs of all those engaged in any form of resistance or struggle. But we did also worry about becoming isolated as a small group producing a local socialist paper but not being accountable to any wider socialist grouping.

In May 1978, the Gutter Press organized a local socialist conference, partly to overcome our own feelings of isolation, and our own failure to grow as a collective and get more people directly involved in the paper. We also wanted to see if there were ways in which the paper could become more efficient in its attempt to provide support for and link different areas of struggle, by becoming more accountable to a larger grouping of socialists with a similar political perspective to ours. We wrote that we wanted, ‘to help stimulate enduring organizational links bridging the community and industrial struggles … We feel that it is possible to. create greater co-ordination and support between people involved in local struggles. In the absence of a militant Trades Council, which could do just such a job, we are looking for new possibilities of co-ordination.’ (Gutter Press leaflet, March 1978.) At the conference, which was attended by 150 people, we found that there were a large number of people, inside and outside of left groups, and inside and outside of the Labour Party, who were keen to set up a socialist centre in Islington. This socialist centre now meets weekly in a local pub, and is supported by most of the left, in particular by individuals in the Labour Party, the CP, the IMG, and Big Flame as well as by most socialist feminists and many non-aligned socialists.

The centre has organized many very well-attended and successful meetings, on Ireland, on feminism, on racism and on fascism, on struggles internationally and nationally, as well as attempts to understand the local situation in more detail and provide entertainment and pleasure. Evenings are planned to fit in with wider struggles; for example, a meeting on Ireland before or after a big Irish demonstration. It has therefore provided a useful base for meeting other local militants. It has increased the possibilities for more regular joint work when struggles arise, as well as providing political education, and entertainment which strengthens the growth of an alternative socialist and feminist culture. I think it was the consistent work done by the Gutter Press in establishing contacts and trust between militants that made the centre a real possibility in Islington. The paper collective has also now expanded, and become politically more diverse.

The socialist centre has therefore, in part, served to validate attempts made originally by those outside of the traditional left to find new ways of organizing. It is true, though, that at present the centre serves better as a focus for co-operation and discussion between the left than as a place for extending our base further within the working class. Some of us are hopeful that the support that we can give to people in struggle will begin to overcome this problem. Others are less worried about it. In fact, one of the most interesting, or perhaps most distressing, aspects of the centre is how clearly it often defines and separates the two groups of peuple, those most concerned with creating left alternatives a.o.d those most concerned with class struggle. Nevertheless, most of us still feel that the centre does create real possibilities for strengthening co-operation amongst socialists and feminists, as well as a way to reach out to working-class women and men in the area. This does not mean that. we reject more traditional forms of political work centred on the workplace and the unions.

Some Conclusions

In this last section I want to return to some of the problems created by the way we organized in the women’s movement and the libertarian left. As I have illustrated, we always emphasized the importance of local activity and tended to under-emphasize, and were suspicious of, national organization·. In national structures we felt women, in particular, couldn’t overcome the problems of male domination and leaderism and feel able to contribute their own experiences. This of course contrasts with the traditional revolutionary left who tend to have an overemphasis on national and international politics and to dismiss attempts at local organizing as mere localism. The national organization which the women’s movement has achieved is only around particular struggles, for example, NAC, Women’s Aid or WARF (Women against Racism and Fascism). But this leaves us with problems, even in linking up these particular struggles. How do we arrive at any overall perspectives, decide which activities to get involved in and evaluate the results of our work?

I think the final collapse of the Essex Road Women’s Cen tre and our failure to replace it are linked to the general problems which can occur for any loose network of small local groups. It’s not easy to work out where you are going on your own as a small group, or to work out where you have succeeded and where you have failed. It’s difficult for other people in other places to learn from your experiences, and for you to learn from them. We could have benefited from more regular exchange of experiences from other groups, comparing and contrasting our activities.

The problem of not really operating within an experience sharing and learning process is a difficult one. At a recent conference on women’s centres in July 1979 all the old debates and conflicts came up, as though for the first time. Were women acting as unpaid social workers? Should men ever be allowed in? Should centres be funded? Why was it hard to reach working-class women, and was this important?

Resolving the conflicts seemed to be as hard as ever. There was no agreement on how the centres fitted in to an overall strategy for achieving liberation. These recurring conflicts do seem to be a strong argument for some form of national organization. Though it is also true that national organizations can be slow to learn if they rely on old formulas and dogma seen as universally valid, instead of learning from new movements. For instance, issues like sexism, racism, national autonomy, and energy policies are all ones which the revolutionary left has been slow to take up. But the women’s movement does need some way of assessing its past effectiveness, and using this to develop future directions in less random ways.

At Essex Road we did learn that it was hard to extend our politics outside of ourselves, and to relate to local working-class women, but we never really knew what to do about this. It is not an easy problem to solve. But if you are trying to involve working-class women, you sometimes need to take up issues which don’t relate only to women, for example nurseries, housing, etc. Though you can carry a feminist perspective into these issues, you will need to go outside of your women’s group to do this, extending the base of your activity. Our lack of structure perhaps made it difficult for working-class women who were outside of our friendship networks, to know how to get involved. I know of one woman who used to walk past our women’s centre every day before she had fled from her violent husband, and never dared to come in. She now works at a women’s refuge, but in those days, not knowing who we were, it would have been difficult for her to have looked to us for support.

This is linked to another problem. Women correctly realized the importance of including a struggle around personal relations within the struggle for socialism, and argued that without this many women would not become involved at all. ‘The personal is political’ was a central slogan of the women’s movement. But this slogan did come to be interpreted in a very vague way, as though it meant that whatever you do, your actions have political significance. 1 don’t think that this was the idea behind the slogan. What it did assert was that there is a connection between how you choose to live and relate to people and the struggle for social change.(22) This was all the more obvious to women in that our training into inferiority and passivity made it even more difficult for us to struggle or to feel a part of a male-dominated left. We had to create new supportive structures if we were to feel confident enough that what we said and did in our struggle against patriarchy and capitalism was important. Women said that how we relate to each other in everyday life is a part of the struggle for socialism, and in this way socialism can begin to grow within capitalism itself, but the struggle against oppression remains to be fought and won.

Over the ten years since 1968, however, there has been a complex development in the often overlapping areas of libertarianism and feminism. It does seem that many libertarians have overstressed the prefigurative lifestyle element. This has led many of them to retreat from public political activity and class politics into rustic bliss, or mysticism, or whole foods or ghetto-ized co-ops. But these forms of retreat are not options which are open to many people; in particular, working-class people do not have the freedom to choose them. They are more trapped within the capital-labour relationship, both at home and at work, as they do what they must to support themselves and their families. But this withdrawal from consumer and urban life does have deep roots in English socialism (Carpenter, Owen, etc.) and it does maintain a visionary strand in the socialist movement that we can ill do without. It exists most clearly today in what is known as the ‘communes movement’. Some parts of the women’s movement have shown the same tendency, which others have characterized as ‘cultural feminism’, on the analogy of cultural nationalism.(23) Perhaps it is also possible to talk of a ‘cultural libertarianism’. These politics do show us the possibilities of new and better ways to live, but exactly how they relate to the building of a combative feminist and socialist movement is something that remains ambiguous both historically and in the present.

The preoccupation more with lifestyles than with building the women’s movement increased -in Islington once the women’s centre had closed. Because then it became less clear how women could help build a movement which was open to all women in their struggle for liberation. Women in their different groups, whether women’s groups or mixed groups or campaigns, found it more difficult to get support from each other. We became more isolated and have difficulty in responding to specific feminist issues as they arise. In Islington there are now moves from one local study group to change this, by organizing open discussions on women’s liberation locally. Obviously in many areas socialist feminist groups are working towards a similar goal. Nevertheless, I think it’s true to say that at least some women have lost some of the confidence they had in the early seventies in the struggle to build the women’s movement and have become even more suspicious of any overt political work.

Part of the problem is related to the general crisis of the profitability of capitalism, and the defeats of the working class. As I said at the beginning, the early seventies was still a period of economic boom. In these conditions it was clear that militancy did payoff. In many places people were able to fight for, and win, particular struggles, whether it was setting up a nursery, the funding of a youth project, improved housing conditions, or the establishment of a workers’ co-operative, such as the women’s co-operative at the shoe factory in Fakenham, Norfolk. People could feel more Optimistic about the possibility of changing their lives collectively, and feel that it was worth the effort of trying to do so.

In the women’s movement we did seem to be winning some of the things we fought for in the early seventies, even if in a deformed way. For instance the demands for women’s liberation did seem to get rid of some of the more superficial forms of women’s oppression. It is now becoming more and more acceptable that sexual discrimination in jobs, pubs and clubs is wrong, and its days may well be numbered. Though it is still clear that, despite equal pay, the relative position of women to men in the workforce, as the most exploited wage earners, was not changing very fast-in fact it has got worse since April 1978.(24)

But the economic recession of 1975 began to undermine the earlier forms of militancy, both in the workplace and the community. The ruling class-at first through a Labour government, and now with a Tory government-has been able to launch a general offensive against working-class organization. So we began to see unemployment rise, the thorough-going dismantling of welfare services, increasingly restrictive and racist immigration policies, and the continuousS expansion of state repression, seen daily in Northern Ireland but also used against any large-scale industrial or oppositional militancy whether at Grunwick, or in the housing struggles of Huntley Street in London, or in the anti-fascist demonstrations at Southall.

In this situation industrial militancy was on the retreat, forced back into more sectoral and negotiating tactics, as each group of workers tried to have themselves declared a ‘special case’. In this way they hoped to fight off the attacks on their living standards caused first of all through the ‘social contract’ (government-imposed limits on wage increases) and state expenditure cuts. Today, under the Tories, the workforce is being further disciplined primarily by the threat of unemployment as the state cuts its public spending even more drastically and reduces its subsidies to industry. This means that both in the workplace and the community, victories, whether local or national, have become much more difficult and there is an increasing demoralization amongst militants in all sections of struggle. So it is also becoming clearer that there cannot be local victories against the forms oppression is taking; for example, cuts in the NHS are nationwide. This is the reasoning behind the creation of national organizations such as ‘Fightback’ in the area of health care, campaigning both against all hospital closures and cutbacks and against low pay as well as for better services in general.

This means that it is forms of organization which have national and international perspectives and links which seem to be even more necessary for successful struggles today. It’s also true that, more urgently than ever, the current period demands that we ally with the traditional institutions of the labour movement. We need to understand the possibilities and the limitations of these institutions. The tendency in the past of libertarians and some feminists to by-pass these institutions (trades councils, union branches, etc.), which perhaps was never really justified, is quite definitely not possible today .. There is always the danger that these forms of national organization and these alliances can lead to a dismissal of the dimensions of struggle which libertarians and feminists brought into the political arena. A sense of urgency Can create a stronger pressure on the left to push aside the significance of the more personal areas of struggle. This danger will now be with us for a long time. And so the split between feminists and the traditional left remains, despite the attempts on both sides to build new bridges.

What I am wanting to focus on in this last section are three main problems which need a lot more thought. First, the relation between feminism and personal politics, and left groups and the general political situation. Secondly, the relation between local organizing and national organizing, and how this relates to the conflict between libertarians and feminists and the traditional left in the Current situation. Thirdly, how we move on to a perspective for building socialism which can incorporate both feminists politics and the new ideas and ways of organizing which have emerged over the last ten years.

The problem for both libertarians and feminists, focusing on the importance of local work and the need to build local organizations, is how to create a larger socialist and feminist movement. A movement, built from the base up, which could mobilize enough people to fight and win, not just anyone struggle-difficult as this is-but strengthen us so that the experience of each struggle is not lost but contributes to the next. Libertarians tried building a network of local groups to link up experiences and activity. There were three national conferences in 1973 and 1974. But there wasn’t the political will to maintain any national organization at that time. The libertarian rejection of vanguards meant that we could not really accept the necessity for any politically coherent central organization. But, we cannot assume that links will just happen spontaneously as they are needed.

Today the women’s movement also finds it difficult to take political initiatives, except in very specific areas such as fighting off attacks on women’s access to abortion. Yet right now we face an enormous ideological attack on all our recent gains. Women are under attack not just in our struggle for equal pay, for more nurseries and better health care (now all threatened by Tory cuts), but attacks on even more basic things, such as the threat to women’s right to maternity leave. This amounts to an attack on women’s rights to waged work at all, if we have young children. Thus we increasingly hear, as was argued recently in the House of Lords, that ‘unemployment could be solved at a stroke, if women went back to the home’. As a way out of the economic crisis, the ,ruling class! is seeking to strengthen the ideology of sexism to justify its attacks on the working class in general, and women in particular, thus revealing more clearly than ever the links between sex oppression and class exploitation.

In this deteriorating situation, it’s going to be harder for the women’s movement not to feel politically marginal, unless we can find ways of making alliances with all those in struggle, both women and men, to co-ordinate actions to defend women’s interests. We are not well organized in the women’s movement. Although the socialist feminist current is trying to organize regional networks, and has been quite successful in some areas, it has been less successful in others. The useful national socialist feminist newsletter Scarlet Women has not yet managed to serve as a co-ordinating focus. We know that socialist feminists are not a minority in the women’s movement-over a thousand women attended our last two conferences. But in the coming period we do need the support not just of a strong and autonomous women’s movement but of the general perspectives and priorities of the socialist feminist current within it. The structures we agreed to build at our last conference mean that we must put a lot more energy into developing our regional socialist feminist organizations, and use them to co-ordinate the different campaigns we are involved in.(25) This would enable Scarlet Women to be more effective as a national co-ordinator.

I think we are also going to have to go beyond a criticism of the left and labour movement forms of politics, however correct we are to say that they have failed to take up the issues of feminism except in a tokenistic way. We do have to relate to both the left and the labour movement, but only by insisting that they learn from what we have to say as feminists. The left will have to understand and criticize the way in which working-class organizations through the labour movement have consistently failed to fight women’s oppression. A wages offensive, for instance, is of little use to women unless it also recognizes the need for more nurseries, for a shorter working week, and actively seeks to change women’s position both at home and in the workforce. We need to argue, for example, that the struggle for a shorter working week is a crucial struggle for women because it allows men to share in the childcare and housework. A recent article in Red Rag makes this point as follows:

Implicit in our strivings of the last years has been an adaptation to the world of work, rather than an adaptation of that world to one that allows time for children, leisure, politics … (26)

This means that we insist that the labour movement takes into account the needs of women not just as waged workers, but also as housewives and consumers. At the same time we must strengthen our ideological offensive against the acceptance of separate spheres fo’r women and men on which our subordination rests.

For women who want to be active in left politics outside of the women’s movement, I think it is also true that male domination, elitism and passivity can exist in unstructured local groups and sectoral campaigns as well as in national organizations. People who are less confident, and less experienced at organizing, or who have less time,will find it harder to participate effectively in such groups. I have found that sometimes it can be even harder to combat ‘leaderism’ within the small group, as interactions are more likely to be seen in purely individual and personal terms, rather than as political manifestations. Nevertheless, we do need to find alternatives to the old structures of organizing used by the left and the labour movement, of large meetings and platform speakers which clearly silence people and do not encourage any sort of mass involvement.

There is no easy solution to the problem of creating new political structures which overcome rather than reproduce existing hierarchies of sex, class and race. For this reason most feminists could not take seriously any national organization which did not actively support the autonomy of groups to organize against theIr particular oppression, which did not realize that it had as much to learn from as to teach those in struggle, or one which ignored what women have said about how to organize, using truly egalitarian and supportive structures which build the confidence and participation of all involved. Alongside the need to organize in workplaces, I do think it’s important to build up open and active local, organizations which can increase left unity, and can be easier for people to participate in. I have in mind the sort of structures which have been developed in socialist feminist groups, community papers, socialist centres, and other community resource centres, which are different from those characteristically used by the left.

But for me today as someone wanting to be active both within and outside of the women’s movement, local organizations are no longer sufficient. I also want to be a part of an organization which is trying to build upon and generalize from different situations, and thus develop overall strategies. I don’t think that it is possible to build a single unified revolutionary organization in Britain in 1979, or that anyone left organization has all the answers. But revolutionary groups do have a vital role in helping to build the widest possible support for all areas of struggle, and the widest possible unity on the left.

What possibilities are there for combining socialist and feminist politics in a national organization which is not subject to the degeneration, splits and paranoias which plague all the left groups? Could such an organization work out a supportive practice in relation to the autonomous groups and activities which occur all around the country? We will not all agree on the answers. My own way to find out has been to join Big Flame, a group which in its theory and practice seems to put the class struggle before its OWn organizational development, which recognizes the need to fully support and help to build the autonomous Drganizations of women and other oppressed groups, and in 5eneral strives for a vision of socialism which includes a theory of personal politics. Time will tell whether I was right.


1. It would be hard to draw up a list, but some of the most important books for us were Marx: Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology. Marcuse: Eros and Civilisation and One Dimensional Man, Laing: The Divided Self, Reich: The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Vaneigem: The Revolution of Everyday Life. Henri Lefebvre, in The Explosion-Marxism and the French Upheaval attempts to give an account of what led up to the ideas and actions of May 1968.

2. See the discussion on libertarianism and personal life ‘Coming Down to Earth’, Paul Holt, in Revolutionary Socialism, no. 4, Autumn 1979.

3. This theory was outlined by Michael Kidron in Capitalism and Theory, Pluto Press, 1974.

4. This relates, as many people will know, to Althusser’s now famous essay on ideology, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’ in Lenin and Philosophy, New Left Books, 1971, in which he argues that class relations are produced through two kinds of interrelated state institutions, the ‘repressive state apparatuses’ (the police, etc.) and the ‘ideological state apparatuses’ (in particular the education system which slots a person into their class position through a process whose operation is disguised from that person). Some Marxists today point out that Althusser is only a modern and vulgar variant of earlier Marxists like Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. Back in the thirties Gramsci was writing in his Prison Notebooks of the importance of ‘civil society’, referring to those institutions like the family and the media, which are not directly controlled by the state, but nevertheless playa crucial role in maintainir.g existing class relations and the capitalist state.

5. An attempt to do youth work in the local community in Islington from the base of a libertarian squatters’ group, is colourfully described in Knuckle Sandwich by Davi<! Robins and Philip Cohen, Penguin, 1978.

6. For example, Elisabeth Wilson, 'Women and the Welfare State', Red Rag, pamphlet no. 2,1974.

7. This is well illustrated by Barbara Ehrenreich and Diedre English in For Her Own Good, Pluto Press, 1979.

8. This concept is used by Barbara Ehrenreich in her excellent speech on socialist feminism in Socialist Revolution, no. 26, October-December 1975.

9. Patriarchy has been defined by Heidi Hartman as 'the systemic dominance of men over women', referring to the social structure and all the social relations through which men dominate women. ('The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union' in Capital and Class, no. 8, Summer 1979.) There is a debate over the usefulness of this concept, because some people feel it does not explain the way in which women's subordination, though universal, is different in different societies. I do find the concept useful, but for a fuller discussion see R. Mcdonough and R. Harrison, 'Patriarchy and Relations of Production' in Kuhn and Wolpe, Feminism and Materialism, (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), and Z. Eisenstein, 'Developing a Theory of Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism' in Eisenstein, Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, Monthly Review Press, 1978, and P. Atkinson: 'The Problem with Patriarchy' in Achilles Heel, no. 2.

10. Mariarosa Dalla Costa, 'Women and the Subversion of the Community' in The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community. M. Dalla Costa and S. James (Falling Wall Press, 1973). For a fuller discussion of this debate see Jean Gardiner, 'Women's Domestic Labour', New Left Review, no. 89, 1975.

11. Valerie Charlton, 'The Patter of Tiny Contradictions', Red Rag, no. 5, 1973.

12. See Mandy Snell 'The Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts: Their Impact on the Workplace', Feminist Review, no. I, 1979.

13. See Mary Kathleen Benet Secretary: An Enquiry into the Female Ghetto, Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972.

14. Despite some claims to the contrary, radical and revolutionary feminists were not the only ones to talk about rape and violence against women. Though it is true that recently they have perhaps been the main impetus behind some of the large demonstrations on these issues.

15. Similar victories of this sort over a nursery, play space and other community facilities are described in Jan O'Malley: The Politics of Community Action, Spokesman, 1977.

16. The limitations of orthodox Marxism in its analysis of women's oppression has been discussed elsewhere, for example, in Rosalind Delmar's, 'Looking Again at Engel's "Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" " in A. Oakley and J. Mitchell (eds.) The Rights and Wrongs of Women, Penguin, 1976 and Heidi Hartman, ibid.

17. John Ross, 'Capitalism, politics and personal life' in Socialist Woman, Summer 1977.

18. This account of the SWP's present position on women's politics and what is described as 'the crisis' in Women's Voice is obtained in part from detailed discussions with SWP comrades.

19. From the 'Revolutionary Feminist statement' to the Birmingham Women's Liberation Conference, 1977.

20. From 'Sex, Family and the New Right' in Radical America, Winter 1977/78.

21. Judging from the impact of the first edition of Beyond the Fragments in the Trotskyist press, where this section on local organizing was completely ignored in almost all the reviews, the ·situation has not changed very much. I had hoped that it might have.

22. Barbara Ehrenreich makes this point when discussing the importance of developing political morality, 'Toward a Political Morality', Liberation, July-August 1977.

23. See Brooke, 'The Retreat to Cultural Feminism', Feminist Revolution, 1975.

24. See 'Equal Pay: Why the Acts Don't Work', Jenny Earle and Julia Phillips, Spare Rib, no. 86, September 1979.

25. A discussion of the points of agreement which were reached at the Socialist Feminist Conference in March 1979 can be found in Scarlet Women,July 1979.

26. B. Campbell and V. Charlton, 'Work to Rule' in Red Rag, January 1979.