|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 3 2007
Our opinion of the movie "Reds" remains the same as when "Reds" came out. We know what else people are going to watch and even though the film is mainly a romance, the fight that John Reed put in at the long conference tables of the Comintern is the same fight MIM is putting up today on its third cardinal principle. Nonetheless, we would like to expand on an aspect of the film, namely the substance of the gender questions raised.
The film occurs in the setting of World War I. Most of the world can still relate to the questions raised by the historical appearance of Louise Bryants. Louise Bryant has her own career, her own place to live, a lack of commitment to one man and a sexual forwardness made for Hollywood. ("I'd like to see you with your pants off.")
Louise Bryant (played by Diane Keaton) flits between progressive-becoming- communist journalist John Reed (played by Warren Beatty) and playwright Eugene O'Neill. Most of the world still agrees with Eugene O'Neill in his putting of Louise Bryant first, at the center. Eugene O'Neill offers Louise Bryant that he would not run around the planet without her, because she's too important. John Reed plays the consistent practitioner of free love while Eugene O'Neill has no use for politics or independence of women.
The majority of the world's people will see John Reed and Louise Bryant as synonymous with sexual liberalism and assault on the family. Eugene O'Neill will seem closer to the mark for most, including most proletarians in the world. Thus the gender dynamic in "Reds" will seem as one of monogamy/family (Eugene O'Neill) and free love (John Reed).
For World War I and most of the world today, the mushing together of communism and sexual liberalism is fine and historically accurate. In 2006, in the imperialist countries it is becoming more and more important to understand that the era of an easy-going unity of sexual liberalism and communism is long past. The battle for womyn to own her own property and have her own career has been won.
The MIM Thought difference can be seen in our interpretation of two scenes in the movie. Instead of upholding a past that no longer exists in the imperialist countries, along with corresponding issues which are no longer cutting edge, MIM pretends that Louise Bryant exists in the conditions of our time for this re- interpretation.
When Louse Bryant shows up in Eugene O'Neill's life a second time, Eugene O'Neill says something to the effect that: "you imagine that if you talk politics with a man before going to bed with him you are doing missionary work and not having sex." A large portion of the apolitical world including proletarians will be cheering for that little zinger but for the wrong reasons.
The other scene of importance is John Reed on stage urging on a Russian strike in an armaments factory just prior to the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Prior to his speech on stage, Louise Bryant was travelling with John Reed but not sleeping with him. She was actually angry at John Reed for a little inconsistency of her own at the time. After the speech which successfully spurs a strike, we see Louise Bryant having sex with John Reed.
With these two bits of information about Eugene O'Neill and John Reed we can piece together what it is that Louise Bryant is really about. She loves creative power. Creative power is the real power, as opposed to the appearance of power that appears to exist when one is a cog-in-the-machine. The Russian Revolution was about real power, the ability to change something, not just play a role in a system.
Both John Reed and Eugene O'Neill display different kinds of consistent interest in Louise Bryant. Most of the world will interpret Louise Bryant's quandary as not wanting to be like her mother and vacillating back-and-forth between monogamy and free love. For MIM Thought purposes that would be a useless interpretation. Louise Bryant is consistent in adapting to and loving creative power. For most people there will be an underlying class reason for such an adaptation. Louise Bryant's frustration and vacillation stem from not understanding the roots of her own desires.
The most stable part of the relationship between John Reed and Louise Bryant occurs when they write stories and books together while living together in Westchester after the Bolshevik Revolution. Without this activity, the relationship simply collapses. The underlying problem is that Louise Bryant cannot see herself sitting in front of the Comintern struggling over that kind of power if there is any--a question she is uncertain of. At the same time, she does not find anything else redeeming in men other than creative power.
When we look at John Reed, the bottom line is that had he not spurred the Russian armaments industry strike and brought Louise Bryant to the cusp of history, she would not have loved him or appeared to have loved him. It leaves open the obvious question--what if John Reed had no Russian Revolution to bring Louise Bryant to? The obvious answer is that Louise Bryant would not be sleeping with John Reed. We challenge our readers to go watch "Reds" again with the MIM interpretation in mind and see if we are not right.
The Maoists in China dealt with this question to some extent. Chinese comrades did criticize women who fell for responsible comrades with upper class backgrounds in droves. John Reed was from the upper class. He was ruling class material who found his way to the communist side. He knew where to bring Louise Bryant as few workers in the U$A would have.
Theorist Catharine MacKinnon goes on at length on the nature of male desire, but it is often the case that female desire is the more interesting question. MIM has taken MacKinnon's work to make it into a theory of change. Instead of a uniform story of male love of power and dominance, MIM looks at what happens when a whole group of people change their power, as for instance when adult females win the vote, get property and take up careers in the imperialist countries. How does their desire change we ask.
Without Louise Bryant while in Russia, John Reed apparently does not tell Zinoviev of his weak physical condition and volunteers for what turns out to be a suicide mission for a man of weak health. In the midst of this travail, Louise Bryant treks across dangerous territory to be with Reed one last time before he dies and this is what makes "Reds" a powerful romance. This is the case that sexual liberalism will make to the world for itself.
In contrast, in "Reds," MIM Thought sees a challenge for our times. In our diminished communist movements in the West, we will have disproportionate shares of people of creative power. The leaders of communism remain without much of a machine to be cogs in. Thus Louise Bryants are inevitable to our movement still. We can even say that Louise Bryant loves something like John Reed's political line. This is a throwback to the bourgeois revolution. The task going forward in the imperialist countries is to find what remains of romance without the intrigue of power--and the answer could well be "not much."
On the one side we have the hoary past, where the status of wimmin is much in doubt in most of the world. On the other side we have a sexual liberalism created by the patriarchy to justify the oppressor's privileged position. Thus, MIM cares little for the original historical gender premises of "Reds" and we are tired of the liberalism versus reaction question which still absorbs the other organizations calling themselves "Marxist."
In the United $tates, Patrick Buchanan represents reaction, an attempt to go back to a past that can no longer sustain itself. We are in a "fork" situation where if the housing industry were to collapse because Buchanan gets his way on immigration, male advantages in the occupational structure as it exists in the u$a will quickly collapse, because among young people today, adult females are getting 60% of the college degrees and increasingly dominating the white collar world. If Buchanan and Dobbs get their way, we can predict more strife between white males and females and even less of Buchanan's beloved family pattern. Without the money from blue collar jobs connected to housing, adult females will become more and more resentful of U.$. men.
MacKinnon's story focussing on male desire misses the boat for these sorts of changes. Going from oppressed to oppressor gender is much more interesting. It would appear that becoming oppressor gender will not stabilize adult female desire.
MIM points out that wimmin are more likely to find their pets cuter than their partners than men. Adult females are also more likely to resent a gap in income with their partners in which they make more money. The underlying reason for difficulties that re-surfaces particularly at this time is a biological throwback-- that we are descendants of males with the most drive to mate. The biological component to male desire remains stronger than in females. Thus, once freed of coercion, adult females have no stable reason for family. It is not biology or pursuit or adaptation to power that can "save the family." Buchanan knows the stats, but there is nothing his movement can do about them.
Despite the changing patterns of facts of our day, our communist movement remains mired in a gender politics appropriate for World War I. MIM is not interested in liberalism versus reaction questions on gender anymore. We point directly at the lack of an individual basis for the family that is not centered on love of power.