Women's Day 1917

Scan page 5

the Second International, who adopted International Women's In 1913, for instance, the Russian Social Democrats : (Bolsheviks) marked the day by bringing out the first issue of their women's journal Rabotnitska, despite the arrest of most of its editorial board. In this they stressed the unity of working class women and men against the feminist sisterhood of women of all classes.

Their approach would appear to have been vindicated by International Women's Day 1917 when the action of women workers, calling on the support of the more "advanced" organised male workers, led directly to the downfall of Tsarism within a few days, and within months, the October Revolution.

The women of Petrograd acted out of class interest, under pressure of starvation, political repression and the most massive blood-letting 'in history to that date. But it is not accidental that it was women who were the trigger.

What is interesting is that the proponents of class struggle have not fully theorised the interaction of that oppression as women with the class struggle, in the same way that feudal relations and national oppression were analysed in Permanent Revolution.

Trotsky notes that the revolution was sparked by "the most oppressed and downtrodden" and it is clear that the October Revolution did create the biggest improvement in women's condition in history. From a position of near-slavery in the family. women won not only formal political equality but the greatest lifting of sexual oppression that was materially possible. That it was short-lived and virtually eradicated by Stalinisation does not detract from this fact.

So how have we come to a situation where the class content of International Women's Day is not only disputed but virtually invisible?

The present women's movement in Britain had its roots both in the ferment of the radical movements in the US and Europe and in the actions of women workers (Ford women, fishermen's wives).

The four original demands of the women's liberation movement reflect this. (Equal pay and job opportunities; equal education and training; nurseries; and free abortion and contraception). They clearly embody both a class and a specifically women's content. The polarisation of the women's movement between radical and socialist feminists -contributed to in no small part by the ignorance and insensitivity of the left - reflects itself in a shift away from women's oppression as (among others) oppress working class women through their arti tudes, values, better access to education, jobs and money. But it is not tied to any analysis of the workings of society. It seems to me to miss the point.

Of course, working • class women are oppressed and have a different view of the world, etc. Nobody likes to be patronised or pitied. But one of the great strengths of the women's movement is the assertion that women are powerful - without negating ieal material inequalities of power. Why can't working class women's power be recognised?

Working class women do have a different angle on the world but it's not just a question of a different culture, but a reflection of the real material world. And, materially, the working class have the power to transform society, when they finally act, as the Petrograd women showed.

It's no use harking back to 1917 or before, when the issues seemed clear-cut. We're in 1984 and the present women's movement has raised issues and developed strategies which cannot and should not be ignored. What we need is to develop the understandings of both previous women's struggles and the present movement into a strategy for now that recognises the power we have and uses it.

Maria Navarro, a shop steward at INTERVATIONAL Women's Day (March 8) was originally a workers' day of cete bration.

It was also. in 1917. the first day of the Russian Revolution.

This excerpt from Leon Trotsky's 'History of the Russian Revolution' tells how.

In Trotsky's book. for these events he used the old Calendar, thirteen days behind the modern one, according to which International Women's Day was Februay 23 (thus, *the February revolution!) We have changed the dates to the modern reckoning.

MARCH 8 was International Woman's Day. The social-democratic circles had intended mark this day in a general manner: by meetings, speeches, leaflets.

It had not occurred to anyone that it might become the first day of the revolution. Not a single organisation called for strikes on that day.

What is more, even a Bolshevik organisation, and a most militant London Hospital committee, all workers - was opposing strikes.

The temper of the masses, according to Kayuroy, one of the leaders in the workers' district. was very tense; any strike would threaten to turn into an open fight. But since the committee thought the time unripe for militant action - the party not strong enough and the workers having too few contacts with the soldiers - they decided not to call for strikes but to prepare for revolutionary action at some indefinite time in the future.

Such was the course followed by the committee on the eve of March 8, and everyone seemed to accept it.

On the following morning, however, in spite of all directives, the women textile workers in several factories went on strike. and sent delegates to the metal workers with an appeal for support. "With reluctance." writes Kayurov, "the Bolsheviks agreed to this, and they were followed by the workers - Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries. But once there is a mass strike, one must call everybody into the streets and take the lead."

Such was Kayurov's decision, and the Vyborg committee had to agree to it. "The idea of going into the streets had long been ripening among the workers; only at that moment nobody imagined where it would lead." Let us keep in mind this testimony of a participant, important for understanding the mechanics of the events.

Thus the fact is that the March revolution was begun from below, overcoming the resistance of its own revolutionary organisations, the initiative being taken of their own accord by the most oppressed and downtrodden part of the proletariat - the women textile workers, among them no doubt many soldiers' wives.

The overgrown bread-lines had provided the last stimulus. About 90,000 workers, men and women, were on strike that day.

The fighting mood expressed itself in demonstrations, meetings, encounters with the police. The movement began in the Vyborg district with its large industrial establishments; thence it crossed over to the Petersburg side.

There were no strikes or demonstrations elsewhere, according to the testimony of the secret police. On that day detachments of troops were called in to assist the police - evidently not many of them - but there were no encounters with them.

A mass of women, not all of them workers, flocked to the municipal duma demanding bread. It was like demanding milk from a he-goat. Red banners appeared in different parts of the city, and inscriptions on them showed that the workers wanted bread, but neither autocracy not war.

Woman's Day passed successfully, with enthusiasm and without victims. But what it concealed in itself, no one had guessed even by nightfall.

On the following day the movement not only fails to diminish, but doubles. About one-half of the industrial workers of Petrograd are on strike on March The workers come to the factories in the morning; instead of going to work they hold meetDarily FINANCI SI ings; then begin processions toward the centre. New districts and new groups of the population are drawn into the movement.

The slogan "Bread!" is crowded out or obscured by louder slogans: "Down with autocracy!" "Down with the war!" Continuous demonstrations on the Nevsky - first compact masses of workmen singing revolutionary songs, later a motley crowd of city folk interspersed with the blue caps of students.

"The promenading crowd was sympathetically disposed toward us, and soldiers in some of the war hospitals greeted us by waving whatever was at hand." How many clearly realised what was being ushered in by this sympathetic waving from sick soldiers to demonstrating workers? Ithril RESS IALTIMES Spilling outcome of our own deep research into these perverts.

MPs from all sides have been bombarded with requests to ban these weirdos. Their strange ritual of poisoning the minds of our children.

We fed the outcome of these tests to 10,000 psychiatrists and this is what they said.

*Their first trouble was finding the brain. But yes, he's got one. Only one, and very small.

Impulses measured by our experts show he could speak. Short sentences. Not more than ten words.

*Alcohol: yes. Evidence of this. Traces in the brain, kidney, liver and typewriter.

*Word test. We gave our subject a classic word test. They gave snap replies. This was their response. Girl - Page 3; Lady -Di; Boy - soldier; Lord - master; Red - Ken: Press - gutter; Democracy - ... pass; Truth -... what?; Justice - (giggle).

At that point our test gave out.

Our psychiatrists conclude: whoever he is this man is not to be trusted. He could blow up at any time. We find he is fearful of authority. Has the classic symptoms of a bully. Deeply sexually repressed.

Whoever he is, this man can have no job of any responsibility.