In this guest post, Duncan Chapel shares some personal reflections on  the Counterforum, the first major event of the ex-SWP Counterfire organisation.

Two days. Two events. The orientations. Two futures to choose between.

On Sunday and Monday Counterfire’s first national event, the
Counterforum, showed the organisation and its friends the choices
before it. Either the organisation mimics the SWP’s practices of
building, rather autonomously from the existing struggle, movements it controls inside which it makes abstract propaganda to illustrate that capitalism is the ultimate enemy, or it integrates itself into the
existing activist layer of the working class and the social movements
in order to develop broader revolutionary consciousness.

On the Sunday, around 70 people came to the first part of the
Counterforum to discuss the feminist manifesto. It was largely a rerun of a meeting at Housman’s a few weeks ago, but the introductions by Lindsey German and Nina Power were less politically interesting, rather low level and untheoretical. The traditional SWP line on feminism was in more evidence – that is only working class women are really oppressed – and an underplaying of the achievements of the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1970s. But three-quarters of those on Sunday were students and young feminists, which will have found it curious when Lindsey announced towards the end that she wouldn’t describe herself as a feminist.

The smaller Monday session has some more interesting sessions, but the 44 people who attended the closing plenary would have heard few new answers for how to rearm the left. Summing up the event, two comrades involved in climate campaigning (Henry Parkyn-Smith and Elaine Graham-Leigh) stressed the need to connect up climate change to the capitalist market, as if propaganda could in some way change the consciousness of the broad masses drawn to the movements against climate change. Claire Solomon discussed the new wave of student struggles, the success of the Mutiny project, and the opportunity presented by the solidarity struggles with the Greek movement against austerity. Lindsey German said there was a huge crisis of politics in Britain and that the cuts means that preconditions were appearing for
revolutionary crises – that the masses cannot live in the old way and
that the rich cannot rule in the old way. While much of the left is
demoralised, in German’s opinion, it’s a good time for Counterfire to make an impact on British politics.

Some things were not mentioned by the plenary speakers. The fact that Britain already has an established and fragmented left, which is
standing more than 100 candidates in the general elections. The
reality that, while trade unionists will be challenged by the
austerity, the brunt of the recession will fall on ununionised women,
on migrants and on the developing world. The possibility to start now to accelerate the resistance by coordinating and regrouping the left, as exemplified by the statement of 34 anti-capitalist organisations across Europe in solidarity with the Greek struggle.

Many comrades speaking from the floor had the same approach: stressing the catastrophic nature of the crisis, underestimating the potential of the existing left, stressing the need for socialist propaganda, suggesting that left unity needs to await future dynamic mass movements. I felt that Chris Nineham and John Rees had more balanced perspectives: explaining why many workers will still vote Labour, and stressing the possibilities for militant unity in action today alongside building the social movements.

The meeting closed with stressing a series of initiatives inside
Counterfire’s own orbit: the campaigns against university cuts, a
public meeting in solidarity with Greece and building up the work on
Islamophobia already started by STWC. The possibility should be
examined for socialists to work together on the key issues facing the working class as a while – such as recession, war and the
electoral front – rather than simply staying inside the comfort zone
each group has built for itself.

24 responses to “Out of the frying pan and into the Counterfire?”

  1. “But three-quarters of those on Sunday were students and young feminists, which will have found it curious when Lindsey announced towards the end that she wouldn’t describe herself as a feminist.”

    That is to Lindsey German’s credit. Whatever other flaws Counterfire may or may not have, it means she is not a political chameleon trying to adapt to the prejudices of her audience, but someone with something independent to say in Marxist terms.

    DELETED

    Like

  2. Hi Ian. As far as I can see, feminism is the view that women should have equal rights to men. I don’t think socialists are adapting to anything prejudiced when they support feminism.

    Her statement was notable because, at the earlier meeting at Housemans, she launched a meeting for feminism and identified herself within feminism. Her stance is a unfortunate retreat.

    If you can point at a single person the ISG ‘led into the point of the Murdoch camp’ then let me know. I think you’re rather overstating the group’s influence.

    DELETED

    Like

  3. Can you have a radical feminist withchunt?
    Or was it all warlocks?

    Like

  4. Duncan

    “As far as I can see, feminism is the view that women should have equal rights to men.”

    Not true. It is much more than that. It is the view that women and men have fundamentally different, counterposed interests. And in many cases, that women across class lines have interests in common against those of men of the same class. Hence feminists like Bea Campbell denounced striking miners in 1984-5 as just one gang of macho men fighting another similar gang (the police).

    Of course there are some kinds of socialist feminism that are a confused mixture of this concept and better class based views. The AWL’s allied ‘Feminist Fightback’ is an example of that – better than the AWL itself in fact. But that is not the only strand of feminism that exists around the left. Reactionary strands also exist around the left, as evidenced by the praise in Socialist Resistance a couple of years ago for the sex work prohibitionist and notorious feminist transphobe Julie Bindel, author of the infamous Guardian essay titled ‘Why I hate men’.

    If your equation of ‘feminism’ with the idea of equal women’s rights is true, how come Lindsey German, who is a long time advocate of women’s equality, does not call herself a feminist?

    Answer – because they are not the same thing. LG knows that very well. Harriet Harman is a feminist. Lindsey German is not. I know who I prefer – clue – I am in HH’s constituency – I just just voted – but not for her. I did however vote for LG for Mayor of London in 2008 – a minority position in Respect.

    DELETED

    Like

  5. Mark Victorystooge Avatar
    Mark Victorystooge

    DELETED

    Like

  6. ID is sadly deluded.

    Like

  7. DELETED

    Like

  8. Mark Victorystooge Avatar
    Mark Victorystooge

    I thought the court case foolish and unnecessary in 2006. It looks even more so in 2010. If Sheridan couldn’t handle nasty stories in the press without rending his own party asunder, he shouldn’t have embarked on a political career in the first place.

    Like

  9. DELETED.

    Some of ID’s points Julie Bindel, Bea Campbell etc.. are unexceptional. They have obviously moved well to the right, while continuing to defend Feminist politics in the abstract.

    I note that the young blogger Laurie Penny seems to be heading in the same way with her endorsement of the Liberal Democrats as agents of change.

    But Jane Kelly’s article in Socialist Resistance at least tackles some of the more unfortunate heritage of the old IMG on this question, although doesn’t specifically address the anti-Marxist turn it took at its conference in 1981.

    Like

  10. Mark Victorystooge Avatar
    Mark Victorystooge

    If this is sub judice, then Liam should delete all comments, including mine. But when words like “scab” are used, I find it hard not to criticise the Main Man.

    Like

  11. ID, a tiny fraction of the people who call themselves feminist take the view that men and women have divergent interests; almost all feminists recognise the existence of pro-feminist men. If you look up definitions of feminism in dictionaries and academic texts you’ll see that it is defined as proposing equality between men and women. I think it’s not helpful for you to misrepresent the feminist movement as an anti-man movement. It’s not.

    Let me give you an comparison: the liberation of the working class through socialist revolution is also the liberation of all humanity, without regard to sex or class. Capitalism grants material advantages to a minority in order to solidify its base. However, al classes would be better off — less alienated, happier — under a classless society. The feminist movement aims for equality which will remove privileges for men: discrimination in hiring and promotion, over-represented in parliament, doing less housework and chldcare and so on. Those are material benefits men have to give up in exchange for much greater gains of an equal society.

    Like

  12. It is important to distinguish between different strands of feminism. In the late 19th/early 20th century the demand for women’s suffrage was a bourgeois demand, but this wouldn’t have led us to ignore the struggle, we are in favour of reforms after all! In the 1970s there were several strands – bourgeois, radical or separatist, socialist and Marxist feminists – so to call oneself a feminist may need greater definition to differentiate from the likes of Harriet Harman, Bea Campbell, etc. but it seems strange to me to refuse to call oneself a feminist on the grounds that we don’t agree with all feminists. The Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s and 1980s was never homogenous but the IMG was centrally involved in various campaigns, including the National Abortion Campaign, and quite right too. Nor do we say I don’t call myself a socialist because some people are not revolutionary socialists!

    Like

  13. The thing is that most reformist socialists have stopped calling themselves Socialist.
    Justy look at New Labour.

    Whereas Feminists seem to be able to move to the right quite comfortably without abandoning the label.
    Because ultimately, it’s a supra-class category.

    In Leonora’s day , the IMG did some good work in NAC, especially in getting TU support for a demo of 100,000.
    It had a working class orientation and was behind “Socialist Woman”, which had a clear working class orientation.

    Then they passed some crackpot motion in 1981 about “destroying male power” that was completely divorced from any class struggle perspective.
    It was a sop to the kind of politics that people like Julie Bindel puts forward now.

    Not that I’m particularly exercised about her really.
    I sometimes agree with what she says, especially with the fact she hates Arsenal Football Club.
    I do too, but for rather different reasons.

    Like

  14. Priankoff, on the same basis you would – I guess – have not called yourself a Chartist or a supporter of universal sufferage.

    Like

  15. Support by Democratic Communists for the Chartist Movement in the 1840’s was based on the view that it would lead to the rule of the working class and to socialism.

    As Marx put it:-
    “The carrying of universal suffrage in England would.. be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.
    Its inevitable result here, is supremacy of the working class.”

    Rosa Luxemberg’s attitude to Women’s Suffrage was that Social Democrats supported because it
    “would immensely advance and intensify the proletarian class struggle. This is why bourgeois society abhors and fears women’s suffrage.
    This is why we want and will achieve it.
    By fighting for women’s suffrage, we will also hasten the coming of the hour when the present society falls in ruins under the hammer strokes of the revolutionary proletariat.”

    But it’s just not true that these movements were synonymous with socialism;

    Feargus O’Connor was opposed to socialism and failed to achieve his aims.

    Sylvia Pankhurst was expelled by the Suffragettes in 1914 for her anti-war position.

    In other words, there was a political struggle within these movements, based on their attitude to the capitalist state. In the case of the suffragettes, this was strongly linked to the class divisions within the movement.

    Like

  16. Duncan

    “a tiny fraction of the people who call themselves feminist take the view that men and women have divergent interests; almost all feminists recognise the existence of pro-feminist men.”

    Even Julie Bindel has no problem with ‘pro-feminist men’. Such as Denis McShane, for instance. Socialists should have a very big problem with that, however. Such people are reactionaries, whether male or female.

    Jane

    “It is important to distinguish between different strands of feminism. In the late 19th/early 20th century the demand for women’s suffrage was a bourgeois demand, but this wouldn’t have led us to ignore the struggle, we are in favour of reforms after all!”

    Well, I don’t think these are bourgeois demands. It is in the interests of the working class to fight for the democratic demand of women’s suffrage, not mention equal pay, abortion rights, socialised child-care etc. Irrespective of the position of bourgeois trends on this.

    But you can do this without endorsing feminism, which also seems to have a puritanical, anti-sex component whose ultimate logic is indeed personified by Bindel, Dworkin, Harman, and other such types. Even when feminists reject the extreme conclusions of these people, this seems to be there just beneath the surface. It is divisive, is is not about equality, but a war between sexes.

    It is no accident that both German social democracy in its pre-WWI heyday, and the Bolshevik Party, included large numbers of organised women activists who did not identify themselves with feminism, but with socialism. Some feminists have tried to portray these people as ‘feminists’ post-hoc, but that doesn’t fit the historical facts.

    Lindsey German appears to be following in that non-feminist socialist tradition. I think she is right.

    DELETED

    Like

  17. Mark Victorystooge Avatar
    Mark Victorystooge

    Apparently, solidarity = “I will be a fool when El Jefe is wants me to be a fool”.
    The late Gerry Healy sued newspapers and obtained congenial court testimony from WRP members. Then again, the WRP was an authoritarian sect merging into a cult, in which El Jefe could say blue was green and everyone would say, yes, blue was indeed green. Or be expelled and then vilified.

    Like

  18. Ian, the WRP helped kill 21 Iraqi communists. It actively co-operated with governments. Inside the WRP there was systematic physical and systematic abuse of members. There’s no comparison with the SSP.

    Like

    1. This discussion on the SSP ends here. There is a case pending and I will delete all reference to it. Anyone who mentions it again will have their comments held in the moderation queue until they are house trained,

      On Tue, 11 May 2010 11:20 BST

      Like

  19. Just when I’m at my most depressed about the English left, and just when it seems there is a strong possibility of another bout of blog internecine horror, along come the Scottish comrades to remind us that things could be worse. This happened on SUN as well. Its an undignified and shite state of affairs surely and would remind anyone of those famous lines in trainspotting.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending