Tony Cliff's Nightmare – Feminism

The IMG and SWP Debated the Struggle for Women's Liberation

The complex and often contentious relationship between Marxism and feminism has long been a source of significant internal debate within revolutionary organisations. This is particularly evident in discussions that unfolded within International, the magazine produced by the British section of the Fourth International, the IMG, including perspectives associated with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its leading figure, Tony Cliff, during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

IMG leader Valerie Coulas articulated a pointed critique of Tony Cliff's engagement with the Marxism-feminism debate in her November 1981 article, "Tony Cliff's Nightmare – Feminism". Despite Cliff's recent attention to the subject, Coulas argued that his approach "distorts the spirit of feminism" and demonstrates a failure to grasp its "political dynamics". For Coulas, feminism appeared to be a "nightmare" for Cliff because it challenged traditional Marxist frameworks that might struggle to accommodate the autonomous energy and specific demands of the women's liberation movement.

Tony Cliff's Position

A core assertion by Cliff was that the "working class cannot be won to socialism unless women are simultaneously won to socialism". However, Coulas identified what she saw as a "conscious dichotomy" within this view: a perceived choice between winning women to socialism and supporting feminism itself. In this interpretation, Cliff seemed to prioritise the former, implying that the primary path to women's liberation lay in drawing women into the broader socialist struggle.

Coulas contended that this perspective positioned the fight against women's oppression as largely secondary or subsidiary to the anti-capitalist struggle, suggesting that women's liberation would essentially follow the socialist revolution. She argued that this stance led to specific feminist demands and the development of women's liberation efforts from the grassroots being considered less important than the central task of winning the working class, as a whole, to socialism. Coulas cited Cliff's references to historical figures like Clara Zetkin and comments regarding the dissolution of the SWP-produced women's paper Women's Voice as indicators of an "ignorance of relevant historical tradition" and reflective of "traditional backwardness in the discussion on the British Left".

Explaining the Critique: Economism and the "Second Stage"

Coulas and others framed this approach as rooted in "orthodox economism". Within Marxist theory, economism generally refers to a perspective that overemphasises economic factors and the class struggle based on economic exploitation as the primary drivers of all social and political phenomena, potentially neglecting other forms of oppression like patriarchy or racism as merely consequences of capitalism that will automatically be resolved with the overthrow of the economic system. Applied to women's oppression, an economistic view might see it as solely a result of capitalist exploitation, failing to recognise distinct structures of oppression or social relations that women face within and outside the economic sphere.

The critique that Cliff's position mirrored a "second stage" theory points to the idea that the complete liberation of women is a goal primarily to be achieved after the successful socialist revolution. This view is contrasted with perspectives arguing that women's oppression is so deeply interwoven with existing systems (both capitalist and patriarchal) that the struggle for women's liberation must be pursued actively, autonomously, and simultaneously alongside the class struggle from the outset. A "second stage" approach can, intentionally or not, lead to the marginalisation of specific feminist demands and the independent organisation of women in favour of a singular focus on economic class struggle.

Other Voices in the Debate: The SWP and Feminism in 1979

The debate in International extended beyond critiques of individuals, appearing in discussions across the left. A debate section from 1979 featured contributions from individuals associated with the SWP and others critiquing their position.

Joan Smith, writing as a representative of the SWP/Women's Voice, presented the party's perspective. She stated that the SWP considered the link between women's oppression and the revolutionary party to be fundamental to the party's character. Smith acknowledged that the party had been "backward" on women's liberation about fifteen years prior (around 1964). She described the SWP's current approach as fighting "alongside women," viewing women's oppression as something "toted up" by capitalist exploitation and therefore arguing that it cannot be separated from the fight against capitalism.

Smith also discussed the autonomous women's movement, noting the SWP's belief that such a movement could contribute to building a socialist organisation. She outlined a desired reciprocal relationship where the "party helps build the women's movement, and the women's movement helps build the party". This was not presented as advocating for a separate women's party, but rather for building an independent women's organisation that could align with the revolutionary struggle. Smith highlighted the SWP's practical efforts, including recruiting women, maintaining women's fractions, and campaigning on issues such as equal pay and abortion.

The SWP also produced Women's Voice, a women's newspaper, and then magazine. As mentioned by Coulas, the SWP conference closed this paper in 1982. Tony Cliff saw the project as a road out of the SWP, and Coulas's reference to its dissolution reflects how it was part of the contentious history of the SWP's approach to women's organising.

Critiques of the SWP's position were voiced in the same 1979 debate section. Lynn Segal commented that while the SWP's article showed some engagement with the issues, it reflected the "traditional backwardness" found in sections of the Labour Left and indicated that the SWP had not fully grasped the dynamic of the women's liberation movement. In later writings for International, Segal further explored critiques of traditional Marxist analysis concerning the family and women's oppression, arguing that while Marxism correctly identifies the connection between women's oppression and capitalist exploitation, it often falls short by seeing the division of labour in the home solely as serving capital's interests, rather than also recognising it as a separate power relationship between men and women. She argued that the struggle for women's right to control their fertility or the abortion issue are based on women's self-determination. She also noted that while individual changes are difficult to achieve alone, women coming together politically around shared concerns begins to shift power dynamics and challenge individual situations within relationships and the home. These broader points resonate with the critique that an "economistic" view might fail to fully appreciate the specific, non-economic dimensions of women's oppression and the need for women's autonomous organising.

In summary, International reveals a significant internal debate within the Marxist left concerning how to understand and fight women's oppression. Critiques, particularly aimed at Tony Cliff and the SWP's approach, highlighted concerns about "economism" and a potential "second stage" theory that critics felt could subordinate or delay the specific struggle for women's liberation. The debate involved fundamental questions about the relationship between the fight against women's oppression and the class struggle, the proper role and autonomy of women's movements, and the potential for traditional Marxist analysis to adequately address the full scope of women's oppression beyond purely economic factors.