discussion of this article

Laura Schwartz said…

I find it slightly odd that Eleanor, who regularly attends Feminist Fightback meetings along with another member of PR and who is as much a member of Fightback as anyone is, should wish to attack the group from the outside(see also previous PR article on Fightback.) Whether Eleanor's criticisms are valid or not (I don't think they are but will have to respond to these in more detail at a later date), the point is that she is just as much responsible for such 'failings' as anyone else who is involved in Fightback, and she had ample opportunity over the course of the last year to raise them, and to argue for a different direction. At no point did she do this, but instead she found time to write two long and condemnatory articles without seeking even to formally draw Fightback's attention to them. I don't think that this is a constructive or even a particularly effective way of trying to build a movement or get Marxist ideas across.

Gender/Race/Class aimed to be a joint event organised by a range of left feminists. Our meetings were open to all and advertised every month on the website, whoever wanted to get involved could, at whatever level they wished. I believe Eleanor came to a few of these planning meetings too. She certainly knew about them and was encouraged to come when I saw her at Fightback meetings, for they often took place back to back in the same venue. If Eleanor has such strong views on how a better conference could have been organised, why on earth didn't she put these into practice rather than sniping from the sidelines after the event?

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 09:39

Socialist feminist said…

In addition, the substantive points are just wrong.

The conference did decide actions, in fact the whole last session was devoted to that.

The "British babes for British workers" session decided a whole long series of action points, including intervention within Unite by Unite members present at the conference. Perhaps Eleanor wasn't paying attention, or perhaps she's just distorting the truth once again to fit into PR's general attempt to portray themselvs as 'left' 'class' critics of Feminist Fightback.

As for white collar/student fear of industrial workers, it's worth pointing out I think that the two PR members present were both teachers, in contrast to a number of AWL eg health workers and rail workers, including young workers who had been well involved in the FF/GRC project.

Similarly, the AWL has done a lot of work at the construction walk out picket lines. No, we don't have people in that industry, but then neither does any left group apart from the Socialist Party.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 10:00

Dan said…

Eleanor isn't a teacher. Not that it matters but if we're talking about substantive points being wrong.

That aside I wasn't at the meeting but the point isn't about what this or that individual does as a job but about the attitude towards the dispute, which is often influenced by someones material base.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 11:41

Mark P said…

I'm curious about whether or not the factual claims in the report about the Lyndsey meeting are accurate. Did AWL members focus on attacking the strikers? Is it true that the tone of the discussion was generally condemnatory?

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 12:44

Socialist feminist said…

Ok, I stand corrected. I won't ask the obvious question of whether she's also a white collar worker as I agree we shouldn't head down that road.

No, the real issue is the fact that the report is totally inaccurate in its description of what happened.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 13:47

Kirstie said…

Myself and Eleanor have raised our differences in Feminist Fightback.

At the last FF meeting I attended, Eleanor lead a discussion on the need for a class analysis of the roots of women's oppression. What followed was a heated debate where it became clear that the concept of 'privledge' which was used by some white women in FF to understand how they relate to their working class and black sisters was seen as patronising and implicitly racist by some of the women present. Differences emerged on whether class, gender and race where inter-related oppressions, or whether the development of class society and the exploitation of the masses on which is was built laid the foundation of all other oppressions, including, gender, race, nationality etc.

While the debate was cut short, what became clear is that there is real confusion within FF about what the nature of women's oppression is and how central the working class should be in the struggle for women's liberation. These are the issues that myself and Eleanor have raised, both within that debate and within articles and reports. What is the problem with criticism?

Myself and Eleanor have also been critical of the method behind FF which I have raised in meetings and with individuals. I think there is a real problem of what I call 'substitutionism' - the idea that activists can substitute themselves for those workers who are under attack through the use of soldiarity actions, stunts and press campaigns. All of these actions have their place, but if the workers aren't fighting for themselves then it can begin to take the form of charity which I am sure is not the intention of the activists.

Take for example the cleaners dispute - FF can do some effective agit prop around their strikes and campaigns, but what will win is if the cleaners themselves get organised which they have started to do. The real fight is within the RMT, for rank and file militants to turn their union into a union that is prepared to defy the law to defend and extend workers rights.

In that sense when Steve Hedley in the session on the Tube cleaners dispute at the FF conference responded to the question. "what can we do?" - he said "..in your workplace, get organised - join a union and start campaigning.." - he is making an important point on orientation - to the workplace.

FF is mainly a student activist group, which is hardly surprising since it has it's history in the student movement. It reflects a growing renaissance in feminist ideas on campus - but I feel the AWL, who make up a significant number of the leaders of FF, has not addressed the theoretical and practical confusion that the legacy of second and third wave feminism has left. I think the AWL shys away from this so as not to rock the boat with the current broad brush stroke of 'anti-capitalist feminists'. I think there must be space for an open debate about these differences without sacrificing the unity in action that has been successful in building campaigns around abortion rights etc.

It has an activist orientation, but one with very little roots, so that it often ends up the case that a small group of women take action on 'behalf' of a wider more disperate group - migrant women, sex workers, cleaners etc. This is a difficult paradox to solve - that the most oppressed are often the least organised, but I'm not sure that method is the way forward. It seems to me that a longer more patient approach is needed where the DIY method influenced by the anarcho-syndaclist tradition also needs to run alongside a struggle within the labour movement so that the political weight of this movement is brought to bear so that the issue of migrant women's rights is championed.

I think that FF needs to look at some of these issues if it is to avoid falling into the trap of adding to the confusion about what the roots of women's oppression is and failing to make that important link between 'activism' and working class struggle.

On the points that Laura raised about attending organising meetings:

One of the aspects of women's oppression is that if you are a full-time worker with three young children and responsiblities as a representative in your workplace (I am the the NUT rep in my school, with disputes and case work coming out of my ears!) as well as work associated with my role as an officer(President) of the the NUT in Greenwich, then weekend meetings are hard to attend!

There used to be a slogan in the German workers movement: "..Sunday is daddy's day" meaning that workers shouldn't be expected to work at the weekend so that they could find time to be with their family. Well sometimes, Saturday and Sundays are mummy's days and no offer of a creche can replace the need and desire to spend time with your chilren if you have been working long hours all week.

I would suggest that Laura and the other comrades discuss what we could do to think about how the times and frequencies of meetings could be organised to involve working mothers. In reality, when these things are left to their own devices, young activists, often students or workers without family responsibilites end up making the bulk of political decisions because they are at the centre of organisation. I know because when I was a student I used to attend countless organising meetings because I had the time.

Perhaps a more formal form of democracy - workers democracy - rather than the undemocractic practices of 'consensus' decision making would be a step forward. A delegate based structure with voting rights might ensure that comrades like myself and Eleanor and others who are working mothers and therefore cannot attend many of the organising meetings would still be able to express our view at plenary meetings that would have executive power?

What do you think?

I am happy to lead off on these ideas at the next FF meeting - I would prefer to meet during the week - Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 14:22

Sacha Ismail said…

Come on, Kirstie, this is not serious:

"Take for example the cleaners dispute - FF can do some effective agit prop around their strikes and campaigns, but what will win is if the cleaners themselves get organised which they have started to do. The real fight is within the RMT, for rank and file militants to turn their union into a union that is prepared to defy the law to defend and extend workers rights... In that sense when Steve Hedley in the session on the Tube cleaners dispute at the FF conference responded to the question. 'what can we do?' - he said '..in your workplace, get organised - join a union and start campaigning..' - he is making an important point on orientation - to the workplace."

No one in the AWL, and as far as I can see no one involved in Feminist Fightback, believes anything other than that self-organisation and industrial action by cleaners/workers more generally is the central thing. The session at GRC which focused on the Tube cleaners was run an AWL member and an AWL sympathiser, the former a Tube worker herself (the cleaner activist, Clara, who spoke later in the day, was unable to get their in time); and a number of AWL women union activists made points from the floor which moved the discussion towards the question of organising in the workplace.

The reason why it has been possible to have the degree of coordination between the RMT cleaners and Feminist Fightback that has existed arises from the fact that AWL members are, in fact, active in the RMT, yes orienting to the workplace and fighting to transform their union. Which is also, for instance, how Steve Hedley was invited to speak.

You'd think from your contribution that the AWL tells it's members and sympathisers and contacts: "Go and do solidarity work with workers, that's the main thing", whereas in fact we tell them "Go and get a job and organise in the workplace". Have we convinced all our contacts of this? No, we haven't; some, including in Feminist Fightback, are not workplace organising in this way. It will take time. But that's a different issue.

So the question arises: what are you talking about?

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 14:58

Sacha Ismail said…

I'd add that there is a strong element of amalgam in Kirstie's argument, just as there was in Eleanor's argument in the last issue of PR.

So there are some in Feminist Fightback who use the concept of "privilege" in a way incompatible with a Marxist-type class analysis? I don't know if that's true or not, but it could well be; let's assume for the sake of argument that it is.

So, Kirstie and Eleanor focus on that, implying that they are the only ones involved who believe in "the need for a class analysis of the roots of women's oppression" and that it was "the exploitation of the masses on which was built the foundation of all other oppressions, including, gender, race, nationality etc."

In fact, as they know well, the AWL and others close to us also have a class analysis; but this does not fit conveniently with the narrative of privilege-obsessed, guilt-ridden, middle-class liberals vs Permanent Revolution, so it is conveniently not mentioned - with the implication that the AWL et al have abandoned a class analysis too.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 15:06

bill j said…

But at least we're not Zionists.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 15:37

Laura Schwartz said…

In reply to Kirstie's comments...

The idea that PR members were not able to contribute to Fightback or the conference because they have jobs and family committments is not very convincing.

Fightback meetings have been already changed to weekday evenings since the end of 2008. The last two were held on weekdays and the next meeting, already advertised for 5th March, 7-9 Angel Pub, is also on a weekday evening. Previous meeting times have always been decided as a result of long discussions within the group as to which times were most convenient for them. Minutes of meetings are sent out on the email list where all members are able to contribute or feedback. No PR member has done so.

Eleanor was indeed invited to give a lead off on her views on the intersections between class, race and sexism. Another Fightback member gave a different perspective, discussion ensued without either side being decided upon as Fightback policy. I also wrote an introduction to this discussion, explaining its background and context, and invited both speakers (plus a comrade that Eleanor had invited along) to send me their speeches so that we could put them up on the website for further discussion. Neither Eleanor nor her comrade sent these to me.

I also had some long telephone conversations with Kirstie during the tube cleaners' strike about our activities. At no time then did she say that we should have acted differently.

Of course people are busy and cannot always find the time to contribute, but please don't be so disingenuous as to claim that this is because Fightback structures are not open to 'real' women, with 'real' lives. In fact, I, like most people in Fightback, also have a full time job and taxing family committments.

If PR members have ideas on how Fightback can or should be different then there has been absolutely nothing to stop them voicing them in a variety of democratic forums. I ask again, why this was not done, and instead they felt that articles on the PR website, a long time after the fact, were the best way to effect change.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 18:29

Becky Crocker said…

The sessions I attended at the conference felt like progress on the last one. Instead of 'socialist feminists' talking about class as an intervention, class was embedded in the sessions. I attended the sessions on The Nightcleaners (feminist history), 'A woman's place is in her union' and solidarity with Bangladeshi workers, both in East London and sweatshops in Bangladesh. The focus was entirely on working class women's struggles, where participants in the struggles spoke and urged solidarity.

Kirstie, on the relationship between workers and activists, you say, 'I think that FF needs to look at some of these issues if it is to avoid falling into the trap of adding to the confusion about what the roots of women's oppression is and failing to make that important link between 'activism' and working class struggle'. The session on cleaners explicitly asked people to look at this issue. FF is not hiding from these issues, but acknowledging the situation we are in and trying to work through them.

Eleanor, you seem to be crediting this conference with more power to change the women's movement than it actually had and then criticising it for not fulfilling this potential. You say it was an opportunity to build a 'real fighting women's movement' and that it was a 'missed opportunity'. You say the easy 'answer' to this would have been to hold a 'decision-making plenary' at the end, to debate policy to carry forward. Your successful example, the 'women's charter', was passed at the founding conference of the women's movement in the 1970s. But having a 'charter' to take into the movement did not avoid the pitfalls you speak of. Comrades I know who were involved at the time say it became a layer of educated women in the labour movement passing motions at their union branches but not sinking roots in the working class movement.

The FF conference could not on its own 'build a fighting women's movement' of the type you'd like- even with a 'decision-making plenary' at the end. There is no easy answer to relating feminist and workers' struggles. We need a working class women's movement to root ourselves in in the first place! There is or has been a low level of class struggle for years, which we can acknowledge with regret. But don't criticise FF for not turning the situation around.

I credit FF for turning in earnest towards working class women's struggles and doing what it can to give solidarity. They/we have a political commitment to working class struggle, which due to other factors maybe outstrips their practical involvement. AWL comrades do their best to give the campaign roots in the working class, to be ourselves part of that movement. Yes, we need to discuss ideas and FF has encouraged debate. But it's not so simple as to say that the problems with FF are political differences. We are working in the current time, with the current resources and members, doing inspirational things that noone else is doing.

Thu 19, February 2009 @ 18:42

Eleanor said…

Laura: you say am “sniping from the sidelines after the event” – this is not true. I don’t want to get involved in a debate over whether my life is busier than yours. Whilst I haven’t been able to attend many organizing or SC meetings due to family commitments I have always sent my apologies (never minuted), I have raised points and joined in debates on the femfight e-list. I recently posted a resolution to be used as a starting point for a discussion on Gaza, which as far I can tell was brushed aside from an AWL comrade. Whilst those points may be seen as being trivial and unimportant, in what way am I (a working mother of two young children) being included in a democratic organization?

On your point about “not formally [drawing] Fightback's attention to them.” I have repeatedly asked someone from FF to write a feedback piece for PR’s next issue, but have yet to hear. there is a comradely debate to be had – come on let’s have it!

Becky: you say that FF is ‘doing inspirational things that no one else is doing’

But also that “[I] seem to be crediting this conference with more power to change the women's movement than it actually had“ Hmm inspirational things with little power…to me that sums up the subsitutionist method prevalent in FF.

“You say it was an opportunity to build a 'real fighting women's movement' and that it was a 'missed opportunity'. You say the easy 'answer' to this would have been to hold a 'decision-making plenary' at the end, to debate policy to carry forward.”

I don’t think it’s an easy answer – I agree that building a fighting women’s movement is a difficult task when the left is so weak. But equally I think that as socialists it is our task! I think it is to FF's credit that 300 women turned up to a conference on Feminism. It was a lost opportunity, because due to the lack of democratic debate there were no policies which attendees to take back to their communities/workplaces, etc and use to build a women’s movement. What was discussed were a series of worthwhile direct actions and campaigns – these alone do not a women’s movement make.

Fri 20, February 2009 @ 00:11

A-M said…

Hi all,

I am glad that every one who has added to this discussion has acknowledged what a vibrant and interesting day Gender, Race, Class was.

My experience was that there was a lot of energy and that it has left us in a much better position "fight to actually change the material conditions of women’s lives, to fight misogyny and our own exploitation, and to involve as many women and men as possible in the campaigns that will be at the centre of this event".

We gave a lot of thought to how we would achieve this in the run up to the event, engaging in two days' training to look at how we could make the day as participative as possible. The evaluation forms reflect that we were successful in this:

"Planning sessions at the end were very productive"

"it was very welcoming and participative even for those on margins of movement"

I have a different understanding to Eleanor about how we go about building a fighting women's movement. My experience is that people engage more, challenge their existing understandings and learn through taking part in struggle. Enabling people who attended to take responsibility for next steps in the final plenary is an important way to keep those people involved.

I feel that if we had spent that time on policy making instead, it would have been more difficult to involve people after the event. It is also possible that disagreements would have de-mobilised us rather than allowing us to build new alliances to fight together where we already have shared understandings.

I do not have the time to refute the things I feel have been misrepresented above. I would like to clarify for the benefit of people reading this who haven't been involved in Feminist Fightback in the past that the group is independent. Some sisters active in the group are also members of AWL or Permanent Revolution, however the majority are not.

I hope that everyone will invest much more energy than has gone into this debate into building on the plans that participants made on Saturday and I look forward to working on this with you.

A-M

Fri 20, February 2009 @ 11:57

Kirstie said…

The problem with never having votes on policy is that the policy is determined 'ad hoc' or not in an open and transparent way. What is the policy of FF on Gaza, did FF fightback support the Linsey oil workers? Has FF ever agreed on a policy on sex workers, voted on a resolution that looks at all the issues?

This is a problem I think. That is why the labour movement and the socialist movement has conferences - to decide policy so that differences are clarified and a higher level of synthesis achieved. To make those who make decisions accountable to that policy and to stop individuals from forming policy without democratic debate.

Who decided that FF shouldn't be organsing a boycott of Israel on student campuses? This is a clear demand coming from palestinians today. Apparently Janine Booth and Sacha Ismail don't like it so it gets dismissed....

This is not the way to go forward which is why it would have been more useful to have a policy conference. maybe this is something that could be organised in the future...

Fri 20, February 2009 @ 14:03

Alice said…

Kirstie asks, ‘what’s wrong with criticism?’

In principle, nothing, and we do and should have active debate within the movement. The problem here is that much of the criticism has been unconstructive, disingenuous and baseless.

In response to Eleanor -

The session on ‘British Babes for British Workers?’ allowed space for discussion of some of the questions raised by the recent strikes and protests, with a focus on left responses and actions (which were taken forward to the action planning session).

No ‘policy’ came out of the session (or any other session) because that simply wasn’t the point of the day. Our aims, as cited by Eleanor, were to discuss and organise ‘our fight for women’s liberation – open to all those who want to learn, think and plan for grassroots feminist activism ‘ And there was plenty of both discussion and action planning on the day.

The final session was not, as Eleanor described, a series of ‘further workshops’. It was an action planning session – a space where people working on particular campaigns already or inspired by certain aspects of the day could meet to discuss how to take things forward. As there were no ‘policies raised in original workshops’ this was clearly not the forum to pass them. What did come out of the workshops were ideas for grassroots feminist activism – and plans were developed in the final session. Five days on, one group has already met to plan the fight against the forthcoming crime and policing bill, and contact has been made between people who will be organising against the welfare reform bill – starting with a week of action next month.

And a lack of credible speakers? Women who have organised against appalling conditions and treatment in their temporary accommodation, active trade unionists, workers from domestic violence and migrants rights organisations, sex workers organising against the forthcoming crime and policing bill, and rape survivors who were imprisoned in detention centres to mention just a few– I find it hard to think of women better able to inform on the intersections of gender, race, class and other oppressions faced by working-class women.

In response to Kirstie -

(quoting) “FF is mainly a student activist group, which is hardly surprising since it has it's history in the student movement. It reflects a growing renaissance in feminist ideas on campus - but I feel the AWL, who make up a significant number of the leaders of FF, has not addressed the theoretical and practical confusion that the legacy of second and third wave feminism has left. I think the AWL shys away from this so as not to rock the boat with the current broad brush stroke of 'anti-capitalist feminists'.”

Some quick clarifications:

- We are not a mainly student activist group.

- There are AWL members in the steering group, but the majority of those currently active are not AWL members.

- The description of the event as ‘anti-capitalist feminist’ has nothing to do with the AWL, but was used as the event/ certain aspects of it was organised by other groups alongside FF, including the Anarcha-Fem Kollectiv, CORe, FAF who may not define as socialists but do define as anti-capitalist.

Becky makes a good point that this conference alone can not be expected to ‘build a fighting women’s movement’. The point is, it’s a start. And I think a really good start at that.

Fri 20, February 2009 @ 17:13

Alice said…

Also - I don’t have time now to respond to the wider points made about FF, nor think this is the best place to do it. On the PR article –when I heard about the article back in December I asked Eleanor to send it to the list. This request was not responded to for over a month. Eleanor then emailed three members of FF (not the list) to ask about writing a response. We had hoped to write a response for the next issue, but a deadline in the same week as the event meant this was impossible.

Fri 20, February 2009 @ 17:15

Becky Crocker said…

I don't think FF's lack of 'power' is a choice FF has made that follows from following 'substitutionist' model. Once again, it is not purely a political choice to be working in the current low level of class struggle. FF has worked in solidarity with women workers in struggle where it can. This is not an alternative to building up working class women's struggle.

One successful session on saturday was devoted to getting more young feminists active in trade unions where maybe they didn't know where to begin. I hope some experienced trade unionists will follow up on the idea to put together a 'survival guide' for women in trade unions. I see it as the role of trade unionists in FF to spread the idea of being part of the workers' movement, building it, and supporting women who go into the trade unions.

On your point about the difficulty of working mothers to be involved in meetings, it is a serious point. FF should address this. We should look at the structures to make sure they are as inclusive and representative as possible. We have never really discussed and decided how decisions should be made. We should look into this as well. Please make some practical suggestions on the FF list. It's no good if you feel you are not included.

Fri 20, February 2009 @ 17:15

stuart king said…

Strange. From an "outsiders" point of view (I was not there) Eleanor's report sounded quite positive ie "overall it was a lively day" "good discussion" etc. But she made some criticisms and suggestions.

Judging from the responses no criticism is welcome in Feminist Fightback. Laura Schwartz approaches FF as though it is a democratic centralist Leninist organisation where differences have to be raised in it before publishing, or "brought to the attention" of its leaders. Alice says that such criticism is "unconstructive, disingenuous and baseless"

All this over the top stuff is worthy of the internal regime of the SWP - it is designed to intimidate and prevent any critical thinking. All very depressingly familiar on the British left.

I suppose if people only want to read articles heaping praise on FF and the conference and puffing it up, no doubt they can go to the AWL's Solidarity paper for that

Sun 22, February 2009 @ 21:11

Anonymous said…

"The problem with never having votes on policy is that the policy is determined 'ad hoc' or not in an open and transparent way. What is the policy of FF on Gaza, did FF fightback support the Linsey oil workers? Has FF ever agreed on a policy on sex workers, voted on a resolution that looks at all the issues?"

Yes, do tell. Who does decide on FF policy, is it just the people who can make the meetings? Or is it even less than that?

Sun 22, February 2009 @ 22:47

David B said…

"Laura Schwartz approaches FF as though it is a democratic centralist Leninist organisation where differences have to be raised in it before publishing, or "brought to the attention" of its leaders."

I don't know, Stuart, if you have previously attended the Fightback conferences and other events, or Gender, Race and Class, although I'd suggest that if you had you ought to realise such a characterisation of the culture of debate and discussion is nonsense.

"Brought to the attention of its leaders" - ?!

Comparing anything about this to the SWP is laughable. The culture and level of discussion, the anti-sectarianism, democracy, etc. etc. are a million miles away. PR now poses as being critical-thinking and more 'libertarian' in its culture than Workers Power (in spite of the fact that its theoretical/ideological shibboleths are still rigidly stuck in ortho-Trottery and your mag conveys no attempt at such 'rethinking'), so you never know Stuart, maybe you might learn something.

Alice didn't say that all criticism of FF or G, R & C by its very nature is "unconstructive, disingenuous and baseless", did she? Silly! Misrepresenting others and the pumped-up belief in your group's correctness (as proven by the canon/Cannon and the unbroken thread of tradition) is rather more of a barrier to democratic discussion...

Mon 23, February 2009 @ 00:12

bill j said…

And David confirms Stuart's point, not for the first time. I suppose once an AWLer always an AWLer.

Tue 24, February 2009 @ 21:21

Jason said…

"Overall it was a lively day with young women and men... coming from all over the country eager to discuss ideas under the umbrella of anti-capitalist feminism and wanting to get involved in campaigns."

That is a pretty ringing endorsement of the event and makes me wish I'd been. Even more it makes me think we should try to hold a similar event in the north-west or indeed other places.

For lively discussion obviously there has to be criticism- i.e. a free frank and creative excahnge of ideas. That's good surely?

And indeed concentrating on practical solidarity with workers fighting for equal rights and conditions for all workers- such as the RMT cleaners, such as campaigns against immigration controls, for unionisation of sex workers, against job cuts and for trade union rates and papers for all workers are all worth fighting for too.

An inspiring report!

Wed 25, February 2009 @ 19:25

Sacha Ismail said…

Coming back to this after some time, I note that Kirsty has not answered a single one of my political points!! Instead she comments:

"Who decided that FF shouldn't be organsing a boycott of Israel on student campuses? This is a clear demand coming from palestinians today. Apparently Janine Booth and Sacha Ismail don't like it so it gets dismissed...."

As far as I'm aware, FF doesn't have a policy on boycotts of Israel. Perhaps it should have, though I can certainly see the case that, either way, this would be needlessly divisive (in any case I'll leave that for comrades who are and can be involved in the steering meetings to debate). In any case, no one has ever proposed that it should. I strongly suspect that such call would be defeated, but if you feel so strongly about it, comrades, why don't you propose it at the next meeting?

Classical PR: "dismissed" implies it has somehow been bureaucratically carved out on the insistence of AWL organisers, whereas in fact it's never been raised!

Meanwhile, some answers on the politics, please.

Thu 26, February 2009 @ 17:04

Jason said…

"Some answers on the politics, please" asks Sacha.

Well, yes. However, it seems a tad adverserail somewhat reminsicent of when I first entered left-wing politics in the early 90s. Different left groups would enter campaigns and take up rhetorical positions and then seem to spend an inoridante amount of time point-scoring and indulging in set pieces. However, mercifully most campaigns have moved on from that style of debate- and that is a political point.

Lively discussion, being open to different ideas and letting issues be discussed, amended and voted on is intensely political and rightly so.

Sacha you say that you agree with Kirstie that self-organisation of workers is crucial and that many if not most in FF agree with this- good. Indeed the example you give of the cleaners' dsipute does to some extent bear out what you say.

But the nub of the disagreement isn't about worker self-organisation and the role of communists within that (i.e. to encourage working class combativity, self-organisation and confidence that ordinary rank and file activist can and should control their own disputes and their own conditions of working) but some points about how to take this forward.

Of course socialists have to organise solidarity, have to take concrete actions but Kirstie is making the very legitimate point that that is not enough- we need to encourage workers to self-organise by putting motions to union branches to support the fight, make donations, engage in solidarity action, including unofficial walk-outs and using arguments about health and safety- for example uncleaned stations are dangerous so no RMT member should have to work in them. In the cleaners' dispute the AWL activists I came across did argue this- very good.

Eleanour's point in the article that Kirstie is supporting is that a conference is a fantastic start and she was very enthusiastic about it- but that this needs to be followed up by concrete action proposals.

For example, let's at the next FF conference have a motion to oppose criminalisation of sex workers, to oppose immigration controls that trap women into dangerous working.

Let's have a motion to boycott Israeli goods on campaus and to support occupations of colleges in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.

Let's have a motion to support strikes demanding papers for all and all workers on trade union rates of pay and conditions.

There will of course be disagreements and discussions around the practical content of demands and these cna and should be decided in a vote.

But the whole point of votes on concrete action proposals is to bring more activists on board.

So if FF vote to support occuaptions of unviersities for a boycott of Israeli goods and military on campus and to support Gaza then student groups up and down the country will brign these mnotions to SUs and activsts may cary out actions. Sacha may or may not disagree doing this- fair enough. But by allowing a vote on concrete proposals we draw more people in, showing through action how people can become galvanised, self-organised and discover a snes of thier own power and liberation.

That's what socialism and indeed politics is about.

Thu 26, February 2009 @ 19:16

Eleanor said…

"Classical PR: "dismissed" implies it has somehow been bureaucratically carved out on the insistence of AWL organisers, whereas in fact it's never been raised!"

Actually Sacha a boycott of Israel was part of the resolution on Gaza which I posted on the website and which was summarily dismissed by your comrade.

"in any case I'll leave that for comrades who are and can be involved in the steering meetings to debate" - Sacha - thanks for sanctioning a debate on it though.

Fri 27, February 2009 @ 19:00