💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › peggy-kornegger-anarchism-the-feminist-connection.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:21:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism: The Feminist Connection Author: Peggy Kornegger Date: 1975 Language: en Topics: feminist Source: Retrieved on April 28th, 2009 from http://www.anarcha.org/sallydarity/PeggyKornegger.htm Notes: Peggy Kornegger was an editor of the American feminist magazine “The Second Wave”. “Anarchism: the Feminist Connection” first appeared as an article in the spring ’75 issue of “Second Wave”. A further article by her, “Feminism, Anarchism and Economics” appeared in the summer/fall ’76 issue.
Eleven years ago, when I was in a small-town Illinois high school, I had
never heard of the word “anarchism” — at all. The closest I came to it
was knowing that anarchy meant “chaos”. As for socialism and communism,
my history classes somehow conveyed the message that there was no
difference between them and fascism, a word that brought to mind Hitler,
concentration camps, and all kinds of horrible things which never
happened in a free country like ours. I was subtly being taught to
swallow the bland pablum of traditional American politics: moderation,
compromise, fence-straddling, Chuck Percy as wonder boy. I learned the
lesson well: it took me years to recognize the bias and distortion which
had shaped my entire “education”. The “his-story” of mankind (white) had
meant just that; as a woman I was relegated to a vicarious existence. As
an anarchist I had no existence at all. A whole chunk of the past (and
thus possibilities for the future) had been kept from me. Only recently
did I discover that many of my disconnected political impulses and
inclinations shared a common framework — that is, the anarchist or
libertarian tradition of thought. I was like suddenly seeing red after
years of colourblind grays.
Emma Goldman furnished me with my first definition of anarchism:
Anarchism, then really stands for the liberation of the human mind from
the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the
dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of
government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free
grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth,
an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the
earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to
individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.[1]
Soon, I started making mental connections between anarchism and radical
feminism. It became very important to me to write down some of the
perceptions in this area as a way of communicating to others the
excitement I felt about anarca-feminism. It seems crucial that we share
our visions with one another in order to break down some of the barriers
that misunderstanding and splinterism raise between us. Although I call
myself an anarca-feminist, this definition can easily include socialism,
communism, cultural feminism, lesbian separatism, or any of a dozen
other political labels. As Su Negrin writes: “No political umbrella can
cover all my needs.”[2] We may have more in common than we think we do.
While I am writing here about my own reactions and perceptions, I don’t
see either my life or thoughts as separate from those of other women. In
fact, one of my strongest convictions regarding the Women’s Movement is
that we do share an incredible commonality of vision. My own
participation in this vision is not to offer definitive statements or
rigid answers but rather possibilities and changeable connections which
I hope will bounce around among us and contribute to a continual process
of individual and collective growth and evolution/revolution.
Anarchism has been maligned and misinterpreted for so long that maybe
the most important thing to begin with is an explanation of what it is
and isn’t. Probably the most prevalent stereotype of the anarchist is a
malevolent-looking man hiding a lighted bomb beneath a black cape, ready
to destroy or assassinate everything and everybody in his path. This
image engenders fear and revulsion in most people, regardless of their
politics; consequently, anarchism is dismissed as ugly, violent, and
extreme. Another misconception is the anarchist as impractical idealist,
dealing in useless, Utopian abstractions and out of touch with concrete
reality. The result: anarchism is once again dismissed, this time as an
“impossible dream”.
Neither of these images is accurate (though there have been both
anarchist assassins and idealists — as is the case in many political
movements, left and right). What is accurate depends, of course, on
one’s frame of reference. There are different kinds of anarchist, just
as there are different kinds of socialists. What I will talk about here
is communist anarchism, which I see as virtually identical to
libertarian (i.e. nonauthoritarian) socialism. Labels can be terribly
confusing, so in hopes of clarifying the term, I’ll define anarchism
using three major principles (each of which I believe is related to a
radical feminist analysis of society — more on that later):
Anarchists call for the dissolution (rather than the seizure) of power —
of human over human, of state over community. Whereas many socialists
call for a working class government and an eventual “withering away of
the state”, anarchist believe that the means create the ends, that a
strong State becomes self-perpetuating. The only way to achieve
anarchism (according to anarchist theory) is through the creation of
co-operative, anti-authoritarian forms. To separate the process from the
goals of revolution is to insure the perpetuation of oppressive
structure and style.
incompatible with communist thought. A distinction must be made though,
between “rugged individualism”, which fosters competition and a
disregard for the needs of others, and true individuality, which implies
freedom without infringement on others’ freedom. Specifically, in terms
of social and political organization, this meant balancing individual
initiative with collective action through the creation of structures
which enable decision-making to rest in the hands of all those in a
group, community, or factory, not in the hands of “representatives” or
“leaders”. It means coordination and action via a non-hierarchical
network (overlapping circles rather than a pyramid) of small groups or
communities. (See descriptions of Spanish anarchist collectives in next
section.) Finally, it means that successful revolution involves
unmanipulated, autonomous individuals and groups working together to
take “direct, unmediated control of society and of their own lives”.[3]
accused of advocating chaos. Most people in fact believe that anarchism
is a synonym for disorder, contusion, violence. This is a total
misrepresentation of what anarchism stands for. Anarchists don’t deny
the necessity of organization; they only claim that it must come from
below, not above, from within rather than from without. Externally
imposed structure or rigid rules which foster manipulation and passivity
are the most dangerous forms a socialist “revolution” can take. No one
can dictate the exact shape of the future. Spontaneous action within the
context of a specific situation is necessary if we are going to create a
society which responds to the changing needs of individuals and groups.
Anarchists believe in fluid forms: small-scale participatory democracy
in conjunction with large-scale collective cooperation and coordination
(without loss of individual initiative).
So anarchism sounds great, but how could it possibly work? That kind of
Utopian romanticism couldn’t have any relation to the real world...
right? Wrong. Anarchists have actually been successful (if only
temporarily) in a number of instances (none of which is very well
known). Spain and France, in particular, have long histories of
anarchist activity, and it was in these two countries that I found the
most exciting concretisations of theoretical anarchism.
The revolution is a thing of the people, a popular creation; the
counter-revolution is a thing of the State. It has always been so, and
must always be so, whether in Russia, Spain, or China.[4]
— Anarchist Federation of Iberia (FAI), Tierra y Libertad, July 3, 1936
The so-called Spanish Civil War is popularly believed to have been a
simple battle between Franco’s fascist forces and those committed to
liberal democracy. What has been overlooked, or ignored, is that much
more was happening in Spain than civil war. A broadly-based social
revolution adhering to anarchist principles was taking firm, concrete
form in many areas of the country. The gradual curtailment and eventual
destruction of this libertarian movement is less important to discuss
here than what was actually achieved by the women and men who were part
of it. Against tremendous odds, they made anarchism work.
The realization of anarchist collectivisation and workers’
self-management during the Spanish Revolution provides a classic example
of organization-plus-spontaneity. In both rural and industrial Spain,
anarchism had been a part of the popular consciousness for many years.
In the countryside, the people had a long tradition of communalism; many
villages still shared common property or gave plots of land to those
without any. Decades of rural collectivism and cooperation laid the
foundation for theoretical anarchism, which came to Spain in the 1870s
(via the Italian revolutionary, Fanelli, a friend of Bakunin) and
eventually gave rise to anarco-syndicalism, the application of anarchist
principles to industrial trade unionism. The Confederacion National del
Trebajo, founded in 1910, was the anarco-syndicalist union (working
closely with the militant Federacion Anarquista Iberica) which provided
instruction and preparation for workers’ self-management and
collectivization. Tens of thousands of books, newspapers, and pamphlets
reaching almost every part of Spain contributed to an even greater
general knowledge of anarchist thought[5]. The anarchist principles of
non-hierarchical cooperation and individual initiative combined with
anarco-syndicalist tactics of sabotage, boycott and general strike, and
training in production and economics, gave the workers background in
both theory and practice. This led to a successful spontaneous
appropriation of both factories and land after July 1936.
When the Spanish right responded to the electoral victory of the Popular
Front with an attempted military takeover, on July 19, 1936, the people
fought back with a fury which checked the coup within 24 hours. At this
point, ballot box success became incidental; total social revolution had
begun. While the industrial workers either went on strike or actually
began to run the factories themselves, the agricultural workers ignored
landlords and started to cultivate the land on their own. Within a short
time, over 60% of the land in Spain was worked collectively — without
landlords, bosses, or competitive incentive. Industrial collectivization
took place mainly in the province of Catalonia, where anarco-syndicalist
influence was strongest. Since 75% of Spain’s industry was located in
Catalonia, this was no small achievement[6]. So, after 75 years of
preparation and struggle, collectivization was achieved, through the
spontaneous collective action of individuals dedicated to libertarian
principles.
What, though, did collectivization actually mean, and how did it work?
In general, the anarchist collectives functioned on two levels: (1)
small-scale participatory democracy and (2) large-scale coordination
with control at the bottom. At each level, the main concern was
decentralization and individual initiative. In the factories and
villages, representatives were chosen to councils which operated as
administrative or coordinating bodies. Decisions always came from more
general membership meetings, which all workers attended. To guard
against the dangers of representation, representatives were workers
themselves, and at all times subject to immediate, as well as periodic,
replacement. These councils or committees were the basic units of
self-management. From there, they could be expanded by further
coordination into loose federations which would link together workers
and operations over an entire industry or geographical area. In this
way, distribution and sharing of goods could be performed, as well as
implementation of programs of wide-spread concern, such as irrigation,
transportation, and communication. Once again, the emphasis was on the
bottom-to-top process. This very tricky balance between individuality
and collectivism was most successfully accomplished by the Peasant
Federation of Levant, which included 900 collectives, and the Aragon
Federation of Collectives, composed of about 500 collectives.
Probably the most important aspect of self-management was the
equalization of wages. This took many forms, but frequently the “family
wage” system was used, wages being paid to each worker in money or
coupons according to her/his needs and those of dependants. Goods in
abundance were distributed freely, while others were obtainable with
“money”.
The benefits which came from wage equalization were tremendous. After
huge profits in the hands of a few men were eliminated, the excess money
was used both to modernize industry (purchase of new equipment, better
working conditions) and to improve the land (irrigation, dams, purchase
of tractors, etc.). Not only were better products turned out more
efficiently, but consumer prices were lowered as well. This was true in
such varied industries as: textiles, metal and munitions, gas, water,
electricity, baking, fishing, municipal transportation, railroads,
telephone services, optical products, health services, etc. The workers
themselves benefited from a shortened work week, better working
conditions, free health care, unemployment pay, and a new pride in their
work. Creativity was fostered by self-management and the spirit of
mutual aid; workers were concerned with turning out products which were
better than those turned out under conditions of labour exploitation.
They wanted to demonstrate that socialism works, that competition and
greed motives are unnecessary. Within months, the standard of living had
been raised by anywhere from 50–100% in many areas of Spain.
The achievements of the Spanish anarchists go beyond a higher standard
of living and economic equality; they involve the realization of basic
human ideals: freedom, individual creativity, and collective
cooperation. The Spanish anarchist collectives did not fail; they were
destroyed from without. Those (of the right and left) who believed in a
strong State worked to wipe them out — of Spain and history. The
successful anarchism of roughly eight million Spanish people is only now
beginning to be uncovered.
C’est pour toi que tu fais la revolution.[7]
(“It is for yourself that you make the revolution.”)
— Daniel and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit
Anarchism has played an important part in French history, but rather
than delve into the past, I want to focus on a contemporary event —
May-June, 1968. The May-June events have particular significance because
they proved that a general strike and takeover of the factories by the
workers, and the universities by the students, could happen in a modern,
capitalistic, consumption-oriented country. In addition, the issues
raised by the students and workers in France (e.g. self-determination,
the quality of life) cut across class lines and have tremendous
implications for the possibility of revolutionary change in a
post-scarcity society.[8]
On March 22, 1968, students at the University of Nanterre, among them
anarchist Daniel Cohn-Bendit, occupied administrative buildings at their
school, calling for an end to both the Vietnam war and their own
oppression as students. (Their demands were similar in content to those
of students from Columbia to Berlin protesting in loco parentis.) The
University was closed down, and the demonstrations spread to the
Sorbonne. The SNESUP (the union of secondary school and university
teachers) called for a strike, and the students’ union, the UNEF,
organized a demonstration for May 6. That day, students and police
clashed in the Latin Quarter in Paris; the demonstrators built
barricades in the streets, and many were brutally beaten by the riot
police. By the 7^(th), the number of protesters had grown to between
twenty and fifty thousand people, marching toward the Etoile singing the
Internationale. During the next few days, skirmishes between
demonstrators and police in the Latin Quarter became increasingly
violent, and the public was generally outraged at the police repression.
Talks between labour unions and teachers’ and students’ unions began,
and the UNEF and the FEN (a teachers’ union) called for an unlimited
strike and demonstration. On May 13, around six hundred thousand people
— students, teachers, and workers — marched through Paris in protest.
On the same day, the workers at the Sud-Aviation plant in Nantes (a city
with the strongest anarco-syndicalist tendencies in France[9]) went out
on strike. It was this action that touched off the general strike, the
largest in history, including ten million workers — “professionals and
labourers, intellectuals and football players.”[10] Banks, post offices,
gas stations, and department stores closed; the subway and busses
stopped running; and trash piled up as the garbage collectors joined the
strike. The Sorbonne was occupied by students, teachers, and anyone who
wanted to come and participate in discussions there. Political dialogues
which questioned the vary basis of French capitalist society went on for
days. All over Paris posters and graffiti appeared: It is forbidden to
forbid. Life without dead times. All power to the Imagination. The more
you consume, the less you live. May-June became both an “assault on the
established order” and a “festival of the streets”.[11] Old lines
between the middle and working classes often became meaningless as the
younger workers and the students found themselves making similar
demands: liberation from an oppressive authoritarian system (university
or factory) and the right to make decisions about their own lives.
The people of France stood at the brink of total revolution. A general
strike had paralysed the country. The students occupied the universities
and the workers, the factories. What remained to be done was for the
workers actually to work the factories, to take direct unmediated action
and settle for nothing less than total self-management. Unfortunately,
this did not occur. Authoritarian politics and bureaucratic methods die
hard, and most of the major French workers’ unions were saddled with
both. As in Spain, the Communist Party worked against the direct,
spontaneous actions of the people in the streets: the Revolution must be
dictated from above. Leaders of the CGT (the Communist workers’ union)
tried to prevent contacts between the students and workers, and a united
left soon became an impossibility. As de Gaulle and the police mobilized
their forces and even greater violence broke out, many strikers accepted
limited demands (better pay, shorter hours, etc.) and returned to work.
Students continued their increasingly bloody confrontations with police,
but the moment had passed. By the end of June, France had returned to
“normality” under the same old Gaullist regime.
What happened in France in 1968 is vitally connected to the Spanish
Revolution of 1936; in both cases anarchist principles were not only
discussed but implemented. The fact that the French workers never did
achieve working self-management may be because anarco-syndicalism was
not as prevalent in France in the years prior to 1968 as it was in Spain
before 1936. Of course, this is an over-simplification; explanation for
a “failed” revolution can run on into infinity. What is crucial here,
once again, is the fact that it happened at all. May-June, 1968,
disproves the common belief that revolution is impossible in an advanced
capitalist country. The children of the French middle and working
classes, bred to passivity, mindless consumerism, and/or alienated
labor, were rejecting much more than capitalism. They were questioning
authority itself, demanding the right to a free and meaningful
existence. The reasons for revolution in modern industrial society are
thus no longer limited to hunger and material scarcity; they include the
desire for human liberation from all forms of domination, in essence a
radical change in the very “quality of everyday life”.[12] They assume
the necessity of a libertarian society. Anarchism can no longer be
considered an anachronism.
It is often said that anarchists live in a world of dreams to come and
do not see things which happen today. We see them only too well, and in
their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the
forest of prejudices that besets us.[13]
— Peter Kropotkin
There are two main reasons why revolution was aborted in France: (1)
inadequate preparation in the theory and practice of anarchism and (2)
the vast power of the State coupled with authoritarianism and
bureaucracy in potentially sympathetic left-wing groups. In Spain, the
revolution was more widespread and tenacious because of the extensive
preparation. Yet it was still eventually crushed by a fascist State and
authoritarian leftists. It is important to consider these two factors in
relation to the situation in the United States today. We are not only
facing a powerful State whose armed forces, police, and nuclear weapons
could instantly destroy the entire human race, but we also find
ourselves confronting a pervasive reverence for authority and
hierarchical forms whose continuance is ensured daily through the kind
of home-grown passivity bred by family, school, church, and TV screen.
In addition, the U.S. is a huge country, with only a small, sporadic
history of anarchist activity. It would seem that not only are we
unprepared, we are literally dwarfed by a State more powerful than those
of France and Spain combined. To say we are up against tremendous odds
is an understatement.
But where does defining the Enemy as a ruthless, unconquerable giant
lead us? If we don’t allow ourselves to be paralysed by fatalism and
futility, it could force us to redefine revolution in a way that would
focus on anarca-feminism as the framework in which to view the struggle
for human liberation. It is women who now hold the key to new
conceptions of revolution, women who realize that revolution can no
longer mean the seizure of power or the domination of one group by
another — under any circumstances, for any length of time. It is
domination itself that must be abolished. The very survival of the
planet depends on it. Men can no longer be allowed to wantonly
manipulate the environment for their own self-interest, just as they can
no longer be allowed to systematically destroy whole races of human
beings. The presence of hierarchy and authoritarian mind-set threaten
out human and planetary existence. Global liberation and libertarian
politics have become necessary, not just utopian pipe dreams. We must
“acquire the conditions of life in order to survive”.[14]
To focus on anarca-feminism as the necessary revolutionary framework for
our struggle is not to deny the immensity of the task before us. We do
see “only too well” the root causes of our oppression and the tremendous
power of the Enemy. But we also see that the way out of the deadly
historical cycle of incomplete or aborted revolutions requires of us new
definitions and new tactics — ones which point to the kind of “hollowing
out”[15] process described later in the “Making Utopia Real” section. As
women, we are particularly well-suited for participation in this
process. Underground for ages, we have learned to be covert, subtle,
sly, silent, tenacious, acutely sensitive, and expert at communication
skills.
For our own survival, we learned to weave webs of rebellion which were
invisible to the “masterful” eye.
We know what a boot looks like
when seen from underneath,
we know the philosophy of boots...
Soon we will invade like weeds,
everywhere but slowly;
the captive plants will rebel
with us, fences will topple,
brick walls ripple and fall,
there will be no more boots.
Meanwhile we eat dirt
and sleep; we are waiting
under your feet.
When we say Attack
you will hear nothing
at first.[16]
Anarchistic preparation is not non-existent in this country. It exists
in the minds and actions of women readying themselves (often
unknowingly) for a revolution whose forms will shatter historical
inevitability and the very process of history itself.
The development of sisterhood is a unique threat, for it is directed
against the basic social and psychic model of hierarchy and
domination...[17]
— Mary Daly
All across the country, independent groups of women began functioning
without the structure, leaders, and other factotums of the male left,
creating independently and simultaneously, organizations similar to
those of anarchists of many decades and locales. No accident,
either.[18]
— Cathy Levine
I have not touched upon the matter of woman’s role in Spain and France,
as it can be summed up in one word — unchanged. Anarchist men have been
little better than males everywhere in their subjection of women.[19]
Thus the absolute necessity of a feminist anarchist revolution.
Otherwise the very principles on which anarchism is based become utter
hypocrisy.
The current women’s movement and a radical feminist analysis of society
have contributed much to libertarian thought, In fact, it is my
contention that feminists have been unconscious anarchists in both
theory and practice for years. We now need to become consciously aware
of the connections between anarchism and feminism and use that framework
for our thoughts and actions. We have to be able to see very clearly
where we want to go and how to get there. In order to be more effective,
in order to create the future we sense is possible, we must realise that
what we want is not change but total transformation.
The radical feminist perspective is almost pure anarchism. The basic
theory postulates the nuclear family as the basis for all authoritarian
systems. The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to
God, is to OBEY the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from
childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable
of questioning or even thinking clearly. We pass into middle-America,
believing everything we are told and numbly accepting the destruction of
life all around us.
What feminists are dealing with is a mind-fucking process — the male
domineering attitude toward the external world, allowing only
subject/object relationships. Traditional male politics reduces humans
to object status and then dominates and manipulates them for abstract
“goals”. Women, on the other hand, are trying to develop a consciousness
of “Other” in all areas. We see subject-to-subject relationships as not
only desirable but necessary. (Many of us have chosen to work with and
love only women for just this reason — those kinds of relationships are
so much more possible.) Together we are working to expand our empathy
and understanding of other living things and to identify with those
entities outside of ourselves, rather than objectifying and manipulating
them. At this point, a respect for all life is a prerequisite for our
very survival.
Radical feminist theory also criticizes male hierarchical thought
patterns — in which rationality dominates sensuality, mind dominates
intuition, and persistent splits and polarities (active/passive,
child/adult, sane/insane, work/play, spontaneity/organization) alienate
us from the mind-body experience as a Whole and from the Continuum of
human experience. Women are attempting to get rid of these splits, to
live in harmony with the universe as whole, integrated humans dedicated
to the collective healing of our individual wounds and schisms.
In actual practice within the Women’s Movement, feminists have had both
success and failure in abolishing hierarchy and domination. I believe
that women frequently speak and act as “intuitive” anarchists, that is,
we approach, or verge on, a complete denial of all patriarchal thought
and organization. That approach, however, is blocked by the powerful and
insidious forms which patriarchy takes — in our minds and in our
relationships with one another. Living within and being conditioned by
an authoritarian society often prevents us from making that
all-important connection between feminism and anarchism. When we say we
are fighting the patriarchy, it isn’t always clear to all of us that
that means fighting all hierarchy, all leadership, all government, and
the very idea of authority itself. Our impulses toward collective work
and small leaderless groups have been anarchistic, but in most cases we
haven’t called them by that name. And that is important, because an
understanding of feminism as anarchism could springboard women out of
reformism and stop-gap measures into a revolutionary confrontation with
the basic nature of authoritarian politics.
If we want to “bring down the patriarchy”, we need to talk about
anarchism, to know exactly what it means, and to use that framework to
transform ourselves and the structure of our daily lives. Feminism
doesn’t mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no
corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not
transform society; it only gives women the “right” to plug into a
hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy
— economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarca-feminist
revolution.
Specifically, when have feminists been anarchistic, and when have we
stopped short? As the second wave of feminism spread across the country
in the late 60s, the forms which women’s groups took frequently
reflected an unspoken libertarian consciousness. In rebellion against
the competitive power games, impersonal hierarchy, and mass organization
tactics of male politics, women broke off into small, leaderless,
consciousness-raising groups, which dealt with personal issues in our
daily lives. Face-to-face, we attempted to get at the root cause of our
oppression by sharing our hitherto unvalued perceptions and experiences.
We learned from each other that politics is not “out there” but in our
minds and bodies and between individuals. Personal relationships could
and did oppress us as a political class. Our misery and self-hatred were
a direct result of male domination — in home, street, job, and political
organization.
So, in many unconnected areas of the U.S., C-R groups developed as a
spontaneous, direct (re)action to patriarchal forms. The emphasis on the
small group as a basic organizational unit, on the personal and
political, on anti-authoritarianism, and on spontaneous direct action
was essentially anarchistic. But, where were the years and years of
preparation which sparked the Spanish revolutionary activities? The
structure of women’s groups bore a striking resemblance to that of
anarchist affinity groups within anarco-syndicalist unions in Spain,
France, and many other countries. Yet, we had not called ourselves
anarchists and consciously organized around anarchist principles. At the
time, we did not even have an underground network of communication and
idea-and-skill sharing. Before the women’s movement was more than a
handful of isolated groups groping in the dark toward answers, anarchism
as an unspecified ideal existed in our minds.
I believe that this puts women in the unique position of being the
bearers of a subsurface anarchist consciousness which, if articulated
and concretized can take us further than any previous group toward the
achievement of total revolution. Women’s intuitive anarchism, if
sharpened and clarified, is an incredible leap forward (or beyond) in
the struggle for human liberation. Radical feminist theory hails
feminism as the Ultimate Revolution. This is true if, and only if, we
recognize and claim our anarchist roots. At the point where we fail to
see the feminist connection to anarchism, we stop short of revolution
and become trapped in “ye olde male political rut”. It is time to stop
groping in the darkness and see what we have done and are doing in the
context of where we want to ultimately be.
C-R groups were a good beginning, but they often got so bogged down in
talking about personal problems that they failed to make the jump to
direct action and political confrontation. Groups that did organize
around a specific issue or project sometimes found that the “tyranny of
structurelessness” could be as destructive as the “tyranny of
tyranny”[20] The failure to blend organization with spontaneity
frequently caused the emergence of those with more skills or personal
charisma as leaders. The resentment and frustration felt by those who
found themselves following sparked in-fighting, guilt-tripping, and
power struggles. Too often this ended in either total ineffectiveness or
a backlash adherence to “what we need is more structure” (in the old
male up/down sense of the word).
Once again, I think that what was missing was a verbalized anarchist
analysis. Organization does not have to stifle spontaneity or follow
hierarchical patterns. The women’s groups or projects which have been
the most successful are those which experimented with various fluid
structures: the rotation of tasks and chair- persons, sharing of all
skills, equal access to information and resources, non-monopolized
decision-making, and time slots for discussion of group dynamics. This
latter structural element is important because it involves a continued
effort on the part of group members to watch for “creeping power
politics”. If women are verbally committing themselves to collective
work, this requires a real struggle to unlearn passivity (to eliminate
“followers”) and to share special skins or knowledge (to avoid
“leaders”). This doesn’t mean that we cannot be inspired by one
another’s words and lives; strong actions by strong individuals can be
contagious and thus important. But we must be careful not to slip into
old behavior patterns.
On the positive side, the emerging structure of the women’s movement in
the last few years has generally followed an anarchistic pattern of
small project-oriented groups continually weaving an underground network
of communication and collective action around specific issues. Partial
success at leader/“star” avoidance and the diffusion of small action
projects (Rape Crisis Centers, Women’s Health Collectives) across the
country have made it extremely difficult for the women’s movement to be
pinned down to one person or group. Feminism is a many-headed monster
which cannot be destroyed by singular decapitation. We spread and grow
in ways that are incomprehensible to a hierarchical mentality.
This is not, however, to underestimate the immense power of the Enemy.
The most treacherous form this power can take is cooptation, which feeds
on any short-sighted unanarchistic view of feminism as mere “social
change”. To think of sexism as an evil which can be eradicated by female
participation in the way things are is to insure the continuation of
domination and oppression. “Feminist” capitalism is a contradiction in
terms. When we establish women’s credit unions, restaurants, bookstores,
etc., we must be clear that we are doing so for our own survival, for
the purpose of creating a counter-system whose processes contradict and
challenge competition, profit-making, and all forms of economic
oppression. We must be committed to “living on the boundaries”[21], to
anti-capitalist, non-consumption values. What we want is neither
integration nor a coup d’etat which would “transfer power from one set
of boys to another set of boys”.[22] What we ask is nothing less than
total revolution, revolution whose forms invent a future untainted by
inequity, domination, or disrespect for individual variation — in short,
feminist-anarchist revolution. I believe that women have known all along
how to move in the direction of human liberation; we only need to shake
off lingering male political forms and dictums and focus on our own
anarchistic female analysis.
“Ah, your vision is romantic bullshit, soppy religiousity, flimsy
idealism.” “You’re into poetry because you can’t deliver concrete
details.” So says the little voice in the back of my (your?) head. But
the front of my head knows that if you were here next to me, we could
talk. And that in our talk would come (concrete, detailed) descriptions
of how such and such might happen, how this or that would be resolved.
What my vision really lacks is concrete, detailed human bodies. Then it
wouldn’t be a flimsy vision, it would be a fleshy reality.[23]
— Su Negrin
Instead of getting discouraged and isolated now, we should be in our
small groups — discussing, planning, creating, and making trouble... we
should always be actively engaging in and creating feminist activity,
because we all thrive on it; in the absence of [it], women take
tranquilizers, go insane, and commit suicide.[24]
— Cathy Levin
Those of us who lived through the excitement of sit-ins, marches,
student strikes, demonstrations, and REVOLUTION NOW in the 60s may find
ourselves disillusioned and downright cynical about anything happening
in the 70s. Giving up or in (“open” marriage? hip capitalism? the Guru
Maharaji?) seems easier than facing the prospect of decades of struggle
and maybe even ultimate failure. At this point, we lack an overall
framework to see the process of revolution in. Without it, we are doomed
to deadended, isolated struggle or the individual solution. The kind of
framework, or coming-together-point, that anarca-feminism provides would
appear to be a prerequisite for any sustained effort to reach Utopian
goals. By looking at Spain and France, we can see that true revolution
is “neither an accidental happening nor a coup d’etat artificially
engineered from above.”[25] It takes years of preparation: sharing of
ideas and information, changes in consciousness and behavior, and the
creation of political and economic alternatives to capitalist,
hierarchical structures. It takes spontaneous direct action on the part
of autonomous individuals through collective political confrontation. It
is important to “free your mind” and your personal life, but it is not
sufficient. Liberation is not an insular experience; it occurs in
conjunction with other human beings. There are no individual “liberated
women”.
So, what I’m talking about is a long-term process, a series of actions
in which we unlearn passivity and learn to take control over our own
lives. I am talking about a “hollowing out” of the present system
through the formation of mental and physical (concrete) alternatives to
the way things are. The romantic image of a small band of armed
guerrillas overthrowing the U.S. government is obsolete (as is all male
politics) and basically irrelevant to this conception of revolution. We
would be squashed if we tried it. Besides, as the poster says, “What we
want is not the overthrow of the government, but a situation in which it
gets lost in the shuffle.” This is what happened (temporarily) in Spain,
and almost happened in France. Whether armed resistance will be
necessary at some point is open to debate. The anarchist principle of
“means create ends” seems to imply pacifism, but the power of the State
is so great that it is difficult to be absolute about non-violence.
(Armed resistance was crucial in the Spanish Revolution, and seemed
important in France 1968 as well.) The question of pacifism, however,
would entail another discussion, and what I’m concerned with here is
emphasizing the preparation needed to transform society, a preparation
which includes an anarca-feminist framework, long-range revolutionary
patience, and continual active confrontation with entrenched patriarchal
attitudes.
The actual tactics of preparation are things that we have been involved
with for a long time. We need to continue and develop them further. I
see them as functioning on three levels: (1) “educational” (sharing of
ideas, experiences), (2) economic/political, and (3) personal/political.
“Education” has a rather condescending ring to it, but I don’t mean
“bringing the word to the masses” or guilt-tripping. individuals into
prescribed ways of being. I’m talking about the many methods we have
developed for sharing our lives with one another — from writing (our
network of feminist publications), study groups, and women’s radio and
TV shows to demonstrations, marches, and street theatre. The mass media
would seem to be a particularly important area for revolutionary
communication and influence — just think of how our own lives were
mis-shaped by radio and TV[26]. Seen in isolation, these things might
seem ineffectual, but people do change from writing, reading, talking,
and listening to each other, as well as from active participation in
political movements. Going out into the streets together shatters
passivity and creates a spirit of communal effort and life energy which
can help sustain and transform us. My own transformation from
all-american-girl to anarca-feminist was brought about by a decade of
reading, discussion, and involvement with many kinds of people and
politics — from the Midwest to the West and East Coasts. My experiences
may in some ways be unique, but they are not, I think, extraordinary. In
many, many places in this country, people are slowly beginning to
question the way they were conditioned to acceptance and passivity. God
and Government are not the ultimate authorities they once were. This is
not to minimize the extent of the power of Church and State, but rather
to emphasize that seemingly inconsequential changes in thought and
behavior, when solidified in collective action, constitute a real
challenge to the patriarchy.
Economic/political tactics fall into the realm of direct action and
“purposeful illegality” (Daniel Guerin’s term). Anarco-syndicalism
specifies three major modes of direct action: sabotage, strike, and
boycott. Sabotage means “obstructing by every possible method, the
regular process of production”[27]. More and more frequently, sabotage
is practised by people unconsciously influenced by changing societal
values. For example, systematic absenteeism is carried out by both blue
and white collar workers. Defying employers can be done as subtly as the
“slow-down” or as blatantly as the “fuck-up”. Doing as little work as
possible as slowly as possible is common employee practice, as is
messing up the actual work process (often as a union tactic during a
strike). Witness habitual misfiling or loss of “important papers” by
secretaries, or the continual switching of destination placards on
trains during the 1967 railroad strike in Italy.
Sabotage tactics can be used to make strikes much more effective. The
strike itself is the workers’ most important weapon. Any individual
strike has the potential of paralysing the system if it spreads to other
industries and becomes a general strike. Total social revolution is then
only a step away. Of course, the general strike must have as its
ultimate goal worker’s self-management (as well as a clear sense of how
to achieve and hold on to it), or else the revolution will be still-born
(as in France, 1968).
The boycott can also be a powerful strike or union strategy (e.g., the
boycott of non-union grapes, lettuce, and wines, and of Farah pants). In
addition, it can be used to force economic and social changes. Refusal
to vote, to pay war taxes, or to participate in capitalist competition
and over-consumption are all important actions when coupled with support
of alternative, non-profit structures (food co-ops, health and law
collectives, recycled clothing and book stores, free schools, etc.).
Consumerism is one of the main strongholds of capitalism. To boycott
buying itself (especially products geared to obsolescence and those
offensively advertised) is a tactic that has the power to change the
“quality of everyday life”. Refusal to vote is often practised out of
despair or passivity rather than as a conscious political statement
against a pseudo-democracy where power and money elect a political
elite. Non-voting can mean something other than silent consent if we are
simultaneously participating in the creation of genuine democratic forms
in an alternative network of anarchist affinity groups.
This takes us to the third area — personal/political, which is of course
vitally connected to the other two. The anarchist affinity group has
long been a revolutionary organizational structure. In
anarco-syndicalist unions, they functioned as training grounds for
workers’ self-management. They can be temporary groupings of individuals
for a specific short-term goal, more “permanent” work collectives (as an
alternative to professionalism and career elitism), or living
collectives where individuals learn how to rid themselves of domination
or possessiveness in their one-to-one relationships. Potentially,
anarchist affinity groups are the base on which we can build a new
libertarian, non-hierarchical society. The way we live and work changes
the way we think and perceive (and vice versa), and when changes in
consciousness become changes in action and behavior, the revolution has
begun.
Making Utopia real involves many levels of struggle. In addition to
specific tactics which can be constantly developed and changed, we need
political tenacity: the strength and ability to see beyond the present
to a joyous, revolutionary future. To get from here to there requires
more than a leap of faith. It demands of each of us a day-to-day,
long-range commitment to possibility and direct action.
The creation of female culture is as pervasive a process as we can
imagine, for it is participation in a VISION which is continually
unfolding anew in everything from our talks with friends, to meat
boycotts, to taking over storefronts for child care centres, to making
love with a sister. It is revelatory, undefinable, except as a process
of change. Women’s culture is all of us exorcising, naming, creating
toward the vision of harmony with ourselves, each other, and our sister
earth. In the last ten years our having come faster and closer than ever
before in the history of the patriarchy to overturning its power... is
cause of exhilarant hope — wild, contagious, unconquerable, crazy
HOPE!... The hope, the winning of life over death, despair and
meaninglessness is everywhere I look now — like taliswomen of the faith
in WOMANVISION...[28]
— Laurel
I used to think that if the revolution didn’t happen tomorrow, we would
all be doomed to a catastrophic (or at least, catatonic) fate. I don’t
believe anymore that kind of before-and-after revolution, and I think we
set ourselves up for failure and despair by thinking of it in those
terms. I do believe that what we all need, what we absolutely require,
in order to continue struggling (in spite of oppression of our daily
lives) is HOPE, that is, a vision of the future so beautiful and so
powerful that it pulls us steadily forward in a bottom-up creation of an
inner and outer world both habitable and self-fulfilling for all[29]. I
believe that hope exists — that it is in Laurel’s “womanvision”, in Mary
Daly’s “existential courage”[30] and in anarca-feminism. Our different
voices describe the same dream, and “only the dream can shatter stone
that blocks our mouths.”[31] As we speak, we change, and as we change,
we transform ourselves and the future simultaneously.
It is true that there is no solution, individual or otherwise, in our
society.[32] But if we can only balance this rather depressing knowledge
with an awareness of the radical metamorphoses we have experienced — in
our consciousness and in our lives — the perhaps we can have the courage
to continue to create what we DREAM is possible. Obviously, it is not
easy to face daily oppression and still continue to hope. But it is our
only chance. If we abandon hope (the ability to see connections, to
dream the present into the future), then we have already lost. Hope is
woman’s most powerful revolutionary tool; it is what we give each other
every time we share our lives, our work, and our love. It pulls us
forward out of self-hatred, self-blame, and the fatalism which keeps us
prisoners in separate cells. If we surrender to depression and despair
now, we are accepting the inevitability of authoritarian politics and
patriarchal domination (“Despair is the worst betrayal, the coldest
seduction: to believe at last that the enemy will prevail.”[33] Marge
Piercy). We must not let our pain and anger fade into hopelessness or
short-sighted semi-“solutions”. Nothing we can do is enough, but on the
other hand, those “small changes” we make in our minds, in our lives, in
one another’s lives, are not totally futile and ineffectual. It takes a
long time to make a revolution: it is something that one both prepares
for and lives now. The transformation of the future will not be
instantaneous, but it can be total... a continuum of thought and action,
individuality and collectivity, spontaneity and organization, stretching
from what is to what can be.
Anarchism provides a framework for this transformation. It is a vision,
a dream, a possibility which becomes “real” as we live it. Feminism is
the connection that links anarchism to the future. When we finally see
that connection clearly, when we hold to that vision, when we refuse to
be raped of that HOPE, we will be stepping over the edge of nothingness
into a being now just barely imaginable. The womanvision that is
anarca-feminism has been carried inside our women’s bodies for
centuries. “It will be an ongoing struggle in each of us, to birth this
vision”[34] but we must do it. We must “ride our anger like elephants
into battle”.
We are sleepwalkers troubled by nightmare flashes,
In locked wards we closet our vision, renouncing ...
Only when we break the mirror and climb into our vision,
Only when we are the wind together streaming and singing,
Only in the dream we become with our bones for spears,
we are real at last
and wake.[35]
Â
[1] Emma Goldman, “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For”, Red Emma
Speaks (Vintage Books, 1972), p.59.
[2] Su Negrin, Begin at Start (Times Change Press, 1972), p. 128.
[3] Murray Bookchin, “On Spontaneity and Organization”, Liberation,
March, 1972, p.6.
[4] Paul Berman, Quotations from the Anarchists (Praeger Publishers,
1972), p. 68.
[5] Sam Doigoff, The Anarchist Collectives (Free Life Editions, 1974),
p. 27.
[6] Ibid, pp.6, 7, 85.
[7] Daniel and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Obsolete Communism — The Left Wing
Alternative (McGraw-Hill, 1968), p.256.
[8] See Murrey Bookchin’s Post Scarcity Anarchism (Ramparts Press, 1974)
for both an insightful analysis of the May-June events and a discussion
of revolutionary potential in a technological society.
[9] Ibid, p.262.
[10] lbid, p.250.
[11] Bookchin, On Spontaneity and Organization, pp. 11–12.
[12] Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism, p.249.
[13] Berman, p.146.
[14] Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism, p.40.
[15] Bookchin, On Spontaneity and Organization, p.10.
[16] Margaret Atwood, “Song of the Worms”, You Are Happy (Harper & Row,
1974), p.35.
[17] Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father (Beacon Press, 1973), p. 133.
[18] Cathy Levine, “The Tyranny of Tyranny”, Black Rose 1, p.56.
[19] Temma Kaplan of the UCLA history department has done considerable
research on women’s anarchist groups (esp. “Mujeres Liberes”) in the
Spanish Revolution. See also Liz Willis, Women in the Spanish
Revolution, Solidarity Pamphlet No. 48.
[20] See Joreen’s “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”, Second Wave, Vol.
2, No. 1, and Cathy Levine’s “The Tyranny of Tyranny”, Black Rose 1.
[21] Daly, p.55.
[22] Robin Morgan, speech at Boston College, Boston, Mass., Nov., 1973.
[23] Negrin, p.171.
[24] Levine, p.50.
[25] Doigoff, p. 19.
[26] The Cohn-Bendits state that one major mistake in Paris 1968 was the
failure to take complete control of the media, especially the radio and
TV.
[27] Goldman, “Syndicalism: Its Theory and Practice”, Red Emma Speaks,
p.71.
[28] Laurel, “Towards a Woman Vision”, Amazon Quarterly, Vol. 1, Issue
2, p.40.
[29] And, by self-fulfilling I mean not only in terms of survival needs
(sufficient food, clothing, shelter. etc.) but psychological needs as
well I (e.g., a non-oppressive environment which fosters total freedom
of choice before specific, concretely possible alternatives).
[30] Daly, p.23.
[31] Marge Piercy, “Provocation of the Dream”.
[32] Fran Taylor, “A Depressing Discourse on Romance, the Individual
Solution, and Related Misfortunes”, Second Wave, Vol. 3, No. 4.
[33] Marge Piercy, “Laying Down the Tower”, To Be of Use (Doubleday,
1973), p.88.
[34] Laurel, p.40.
[35] Piercy, “Provocation of the Dream”.