Response of Mujeres Libres
To a "Statement on Organization" from Democracy At Work (D@W)


1. Introduction and Affirmation of D@W Autonomy and Self-Determination

In a statement released by the National Board of the Democracy At Work
(D@W) Party on 20 April 2019, the National Board explains why a
Women's Caucus or Section in D@W would conflict with the Bill of
Solidarity and other D@W documents and standards regarding
methodology, structure, and internal process.

As members of Mujeres Libres (Free Women) who proposed a Women's
Caucus or Section within D@W, a proposal discussed during the meeting
by telephone conference on Sunday, 14 April 2019, we now understand
that our proposal was contrary to D@W standards and guidelines; see,
for example, Bill of Solidarity, Amendment 10 (excluding the kinds of
structural changes that such a Women's Caucus or Section would
involve).

We affirm the right of D@W, and more generally of any socialist and/or
feminist organization, to establish its own methodology, organizing
strategies, and internal processes. If would-be newcomers such as
ourselves have fundamental differences with such methodological or
related choices of a given organization, then the principled and
comradely thing for us to do is to pursue our own chosen approaches in
other organizations such as Mujeres Libres. This is a policy of
peaceful coexistence and respect for the self-determination of each
affinity group or organization.

We emphasize that what follows is intended not in any way to seek
change in D@W methodology or structure, which is a matter for the
members of D@W to resolve. However, we do want to clarify some aspects
our own perspective in Mujeres Libres, and also to express concerns
about one aspect of the D@W National Board statement we have as
socialist feminists, quite apart from the questions of methodology and
structure which we agree are the principal points of difference (see
Section 6 below).

We also affirm that, respecting the autonomy and self-determination of
D@W as it evolves in accord with the Bill of Solidarity and other
founding documents, we as socialist feminists will cooperate actively
with D@W when the opportunity presents itself.


2. Mujeres Libres and the Women's Opposition

We should like to make it very clear that the group of women within
Mujeres Libres who styled ourselves the "Women's Opposition" and
signed the statement bearing this title should not be equated with any
single woman: the three of us who wrote and edited the statement each
signed our names. As we now realize, our proposal was simply
incompatible with the D@W scheme of organization, although we urge
that what we wrote remains useful for understanding the culture of
Mujeres Libres and some values also relevant to other socialist
feminist organizations, affinity groups, and communities.

Specifically, we chose the name "Women's Opposition" as a tribute to
Alexandra Kollontai and the _Rabochaya Oppozitsiya_ or "Workers'
Opposition" movement in Russia during the years 1920-1921. As a
socialist feminist, Kollontai along with her supporters was dedicated
to the principles of workers' control, a value which appears central
to D@W and is certainly so to Mujeres Libres. In 1921, at around the
same time as the bloody suppression of the Kronstadt Commune, Lenin
famously declared that "We must put a lid on opposition," referring
specifically to Kollontai and her movement for democracy at work. We
honor Kollontai, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman as three feminist
champions of workers' control and self-government who inspire our own
struggle.

We welcome all women following the traditions of socialist feminism,
inclusive radical feminism, anarcho-communism, and anarcha-feminism to
join Mujeres Libres. We specifically invite any interested women in
D@W who are interested in our program to be members of both groups,
understanding that both groups share many goals and values although
our methodologies may differ.


3. In Defense of Intersectional Feminism and Women of Color

While respecting D@W's right to choose its own organizing strategies
and methodologies, we must respectfully differ from some of the
characterizations of intersectional feminism that the National Board
statement seems to suggest. The purpose of being aware of differences
of class, race, disability, sexual orientation, intersex and/or gender
identity concerns, etc., is not to silence or marginalize any woman in
Mujeres Libres, but to strive for equal dignity and participation for
each of our sisters. We do not believe that group process is a
zero-sum game.

The struggle against racism and sexism in progressive organizations is
a story told and retold by each generation in struggle. Thus when
female delegates to the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London in
1840 such as Lucretia Mott and Abby Kelley were excluded from speaking
and relegated to the seclusion of a balcony, William Lloyd Garrison and
other male allies joined them and refused to participate in such a
patriarchal event. Later, feminist and anti-lynching activist Ida B. 
Wells faced exclusion as a Woman of Color by her sisters with white
privilege. Hearing our sisters, and following a feminist process that
encourages equal participation and active listening, are measures not
of exclusion but of more comprehensive inclusion in practice as well
as theory.

In Mujeres Libres, we recognize that each woman is unique, with
special immunities and vulnerabilities, not all of which depend on
membership in this or that social group or category, although social
position is certainly a relevant factor. Our purpose is not to stage
an "Oppression Olympics," but to be aware of our immunities and
vulnerabilities so that we may support each other in a sisterly and
comradely way and practice mutual aid and encouragement in the
struggle that unites us.

We also affirm the "relentless persistence" of nonviolent
revolutionary activists, including socialists, in parts of the world
which do not enjoy First World privilege, as chronicled by such women
as Raymonda Hawa Tawil and Rigoberta Menchu. We believe that helping
to build an internationalist feminist consciousness and solidarity is
our responsibility, and especially so for those of us with white
privilege while the horrors of superexploitation against Indigenous
and other colonized nations continue. Feminist process is one
methodology for listening and learning: it does not exclude any
sister, but helps to empower us all.


4. In Defense of Diversity and Radical Reconstruction

We see references in the D@W statement signed by the National Board to
the need to engage "regular Americans." At one level, we can recognize
the point made by the great democratic socialist activist and educator
David McReynolds in his book _We Have Been Invaded by the 21st
Century_ (1970). McReynolds observed that many socialists in the USA
are familiar with the circumstances of revolutionary movements in
Russia, China, Cuba, Viet Nam, and so forth -- but seem less
interested in understanding social conditions in the USA and what
kinds of methods might be required for a successful nonviolent
revolution that can meet the basic human needs that any viable social
order must address.

We agree that D@W and McReynolds have a real point here. However, we
would caution that a phrase such as "regular Americans" has the real
potential to normalize the dominant groups in society, and marginalize
many of us who are a bit further from the "mainstream." Labor and
socialist or anarchist heroes such as Mother Jones, Eugene V. Debs,
David McReynolds, April Carter, Barbara Deming, Fannie Lou Hamer,
etc., are not necessarily emblems of "Main Street, U.S.A." And the
views of such iconic figures as Norman Rockwell may be more "radical"
than is often realized.

We favor being respectful, receptive, and welcoming to people from all
walks of life who seek to help build a more just and inclusive
society. But the history -- and herstory -- of meaningful social
movements is not necessarily one of instant and easy popularity. The
abolitionist cause was dismissed as "extremism," and likewise the
struggle for women's suffrage and equality under law.

We would also caution against ascribing every instance in which a
socialist movement is coopted to one degree or another by the
capitalist establishment to the existence of Women's Caucuses or
LGBTQI+ Caucuses, etc. Experience at least from the 1960's on teaches
us that just about any kind of socialist, antiwar, feminist,
countercultural, or other progressive movement is subject to such a
risk of cooptation. We seek both a commitment to socialism and a
commitment to diversity and feminist process as vital nonviolent
weapons in resisting such cooptation.
 

5. A Note on the Connection Between the Labor and Socialist Movements

One of the themes of D@W statements seems to be an alleged divorce
between socialism in the USA and working class labor movements. We
believe that D@W is correct, but hardly unique, in seeking to maintain
and foster connections between workplace democracy, unions, and
socialist movements.

Thus Joyce Miller of the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW,
pronounced "Clue") became Education Director for the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, and later became the first women to be
elected to the Executive Board of the AFL-CIO; she was also active
with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and won the
1988 Eugene V. Debs Award, and served on the Advisory Council of the
Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA). We likewise embrace and applaud the work of
the organization "9to5: Winning Justice for Working Women," an
organization which since 1973 has been concerned with many of the
issues of women's wage equity, family leave, etc., upon which D@W also
rightly focuses. This organization and its struggle have also touched
popular culture by inspiring the hit song and movie "9to5" while
persisting in grassroots action. 

We also note the California Nurses Association and its leading role in
the struggle for universal healthcare as a basic human right. Further,
among the members of Mujeres Libres is a sister with long experience
in the UAW and current membership in the Writers Guild Local within
the UAW.

Certainly the D@W program has some philosophies and techniques of
organizing that may enrich the struggle for democracy at work, and we
wish the D@W Party all success in developing these techniques, which
other groups may be able to borrow and further refine also as
experience teaches us all its lessons. We see D@W as one point on a
rich continuum of connections between labor and other working class
organizations and the theory and practice of socialism.


6. In Defense of Rosa Luxemburg: A Caution About Leninism

While most of the D@W Party "Statement on Organization" presents an
able defense of the Party's stance on organizational structure and
methodology as they pertain to the Women's Caucus question, we find
some remarks in the final section entitled "Conclusion" (pp. 14-15 of
the PDF file) to be curious and worthy of an answer to promote a more
informed dialogue.

We note language praising Lenin for developing "[t]he new bureaucratic
structure of the Bolshevik Party," although the Leninist approach
"infuriated socialists across the whole world, including such figures
as Rosa [Luxemburg]." Indeed our sister Rosa Luxemburg wrote a
trenchant criticism of Lenin's methods in 1904, the year prior to the
sweeping although ultimately suppressed (for the moment) Russian
Revolution of 1905. In 1918, after the February and October
Revolutions of 1917, as the deadly fruits of Bolshevik tyranny became
clearer and clearer, Luxemburg, then a political prisoner in Germany
because of her resistance to the Great War (to be known also as the
First World War), wrote a detailed analysis of the Russian tragedy
which Mujeres Libres embraces as a germinal document of democratic
socialism and the struggle for human rights.

Indeed Luxemburg's critique of Leninism in 1918 is so important for
women and others favoring democratic socialism that we would like to
share our socialist feminist analysis of her insights. We also note
that two other women favoring socialist revolution, Emma Goldman and
Alexandra Kollontai, published their own critiques of Leninism as the
antithesis of workers' control and workers' democracy. While they
offer many insights from their perspective as feminist women, much of
their critique accords also with the analysis of such a male comrade
as Julius Martov, who dissented from Lenin's human rights violations
and ultimately went into exile.

<a href="http://www.calweb.net/~mschulter/Mujeres_libres-1917.txt"></a>

Faye Athena Brown
Catherine Anne McCloskey
Margo Schulter

Mujeres Libres

21 April 2019