5 responses to “WSWS.ORG Abandons Its History In Opposing #MeToo”

1. 

   CMSchaefer

   December 30, 2019 at 4:50 pm

   Oh, very interesting, indeed! I am not sure if I’ve yet read that pamphlet, though I know I had a copy at one time. Thank you for pointing this out. I’ve been trying to trace their attitude about the subject for a while now.

   The G. Healy situation also, I think, contributed to the current outlook. In meetings (national-level), Healy’s actions toward female cadre were always swept aside as purely incidental, so this has been brewing for some time. Still, seeing such a stark turn-about is interesting. I, too, would like to see what MM has to say about this all.

   As with Mark Curtis, it is ultimately the working class women who are being vilified by the SEP’s meetoo stance.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      randomposter33

      February 14, 2020 at 4:44 pm

      It can be traced further back than Healy. Sylvia Pankhurst, leader of British Communism during and after the Russian Revolution, called for the formation of the Fourth International as early as 1921. Her calls were ignored, and the Fourth International did not begin to form until 1938. In addition, Lenin’s mistress, Inessa Armand, besides many other important roles, led a group for women’s equality within Soviet society. The Stalinist bureaucracy banned the group in 1930. She also participated in the Workers’ Opposition to bring down the factional dictatorship formed during the Civil War and through the rise of the counter-revolution and its bureaucracy. This group later participated in the Left Opposition which much later formed the Fourth International. Yet the same process which destroyed the Bolshevik Party also worked on the belatedly formed Fourth International. That process would create a nano-bureaucracy that would deny basic rights to the membership, forcing it to rely increasingly for its position on state-organized criminal assault on women. The leadership of the party should depend for its position on explaining historical lessons of the revolutionary movement, basing itself on the philosophy and theoretical method of Marxism. The inevitable entrance of the working class into the revolutionary movement will need to confront and remove these problems, in order to focus the violence on the ending of the rule of the bourgeoisie, not the formation of a personal dictatorship over the revolutionary movement.

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      Reply
2. 

   CMSchaefer

   February 14, 2020 at 11:54 pm

   Thank you for this tracing back of the history. There is a lot of reading to be done, as always! Do you think, given this history, that there is a chance of setting things right as far as women go, or do you think that, in general, the inherent structure of the parties gives rise to the marginalization of women and others?

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      randomposter33

      February 15, 2020 at 6:40 am

      Yes, but such a correction comes from opposition to capitalism and social revolution tied to the class struggle. The party and the working class often conflict, and in this sense the party cannot always take the more progressive stance. The state knows about every revolutionary party and will not fall from power without a fight. For this reason they must drive wedges between different groups and exploit the differences between workers, party members, the leadership, and other left groups or non-Leninist media.

      Yet Leninism in fact improved the lives of countless revolutionaries by allowing them to follow a legitimate course of action while still openly denouncing the violations of the state. A tit for tat violent confrontation with the government does not lead to revolution, but a determined effort to build consciousness within the working-class combined with professional leadership makes the revolutionary virtually invincible. The effort to drive a wedge between women and men to sabotage the revolution will end in failure while elevating the position of women within the revolution.

      Capitalism has to destroy women’s careers in order to redistribute their share of the profit towards an ever smaller oligarchy. This destruction gives the force of necessity to the revolution, which will inevitably bolster them and give credibility to their efforts. Losing a competition designed to uphold the privileges of the plutocrats should not undermine one’s self confidence when it comes to work done on behalf of the 99%, who have no voice within the system.

      Many of these observations apply to working-class men or any other group. The marginalization of talented people does not strengthen but rather drives a stake into the heart of the vampire class. In my opinion, the party will take great strides forward once it overcomes its dependence on personal wealth, and this will open a path forward within the party for every marginalized group that seeks to uproot the inherently destructive inequality built into the capitalist system.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      1. 

         S (@S52368104)

         August 28, 2022 at 12:37 pm

         I am tired of the anti-#metoo campaign from wsws. Why is #metoo blamed for driving a wedge into the working class, but other, very prominent anti-feminist currents and movements are rarely if at all mentioned, when they bear much more responsibility for being divisive. I think it’s more than a bit hypocritical and demonstrates how they really see women and how little they think of them. I think it is obvious that #metoo was a reaction to t***p’s rise and the events that preceded it in the years beforehand. Almost overnight all these vicious misogynist movements blew up, not to mention sex crimes have been on the rise, which isn’t a coincidence. Like WTH are they thinking defending b***k t****r and p******i among others. They talk of metoo being a “witch hunt,” while WOMEN THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES ACTUALLY BEING “WITCH-HUNTED” FOR SPEAKING UP ABOUT ABUSE AND STANDING UP FOR THEMSELVES!

         LikeLiked by 1 person

         Reply