Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solidarity for self-management was Solidarity after it had gone through the therapist and identity politics wringer - provided the vanguard for aspects of the latter in fact. Very very different from the original Solidarity (and Social Revolution come to that).
 
Solidarity for self-management was Solidarity after it had gone through the therapist and identity politics wringer - provided the vanguard for aspects of the latter in fact. Very very different from the original Solidarity (and Social Revolution come to that).
Even the name's a bit of a signpost
 
Solidarity for self-management was Solidarity after it had gone through the therapist and identity politics wringer - provided the vanguard for aspects of the latter in fact. Very very different from the original Solidarity (and Social Revolution come to that).

Can you sketch that out a bit more? What's the link between the three?
 
Solidarity was the original group (or Socialism Reaffirmed as it was first called) - it came out of break with the old WRP sometime in th early 60s and became a pretty influential libertarian communist group with links to Socialism or Barbaraism and Noir et Rouge in france - they helped produce loads of councilist influenced analysis of modern stuff rather than just reproducing the same old stuff over and over, most of it of exceptional quality and probably the highpoint of non-trot communist stuff in this country post-war. Social Revolution came out of the post 60s rediscovery and recirculation of various non-bolshevik communist currents - mostly council communist but also the bordiguist derived italian left - and, various peoples involved in setting up the first ICC groups in this country (World Revolution at that time i think), along with people who had previously been in solidarity but left to from Revolutionary Perspectives (todays CWO) as well as SPGB refusniks. And then the wheel turned again and fed up of the tightness of these latter groups and repeated failed attempts at organisational realignment between them they then merged with the original Solidarity and produced Solidarity for Social Revolution and sort of wandered off into the labour party, local councilors and irrelevance.
 
That was written by this person. There was continuous crossover between all these groups right up until the early 90s. Bob's experience is a good example.

Interesting. I hadn't realised that the SPGB, AF and various Left Communist grouplets were so connected. Did the crossover stop because Solidarity was the bridge between them?

Also, what was the therapy and identity politics stuff you mentioned earlier?
 
Interesting. I hadn't realised that the SPGB, AF and various Left Communist grouplets were so connected. Did the crossover stop because Solidarity was the bridge between them?

Also, what was the therapy and identity politics stuff you mentioned earlier?

I wouldn't say it stopped in the sense of a final stoppage, it was more the context that produced them changed so much that the amount of links that had previously existed and offered opportunities, the amount of people involved dwindled as class struggle itself faced a downturn of sorts in this country the 90s. Those who were involved prior to that point still co-operated (or refused to on principle) and shared their ideas - wildcat(s), subversion, ACF, Class War - or even the people doing more individual stuff like BM Blob and Combustion etc all had crossover from these previous groups, but they were operating in a different far tighter and less populated context from the 70s and 80s.

The therapy stuff is just the change from viewing class struggle as the key to changing yourself and society to seeing self-work, sorting yourself out as the key to changing society - so the interests changed and things became very inward looking. Which, from what various people who were involved in these groups at the time have told me, led to the more classically political being pissed off and joining the other attempts at regroupments that ended up in the labour party in the early-mid-80s - which itself helped produce two other developments - total rejection of labourism and identity politics by one set of these people following 83, and the growing influence of the ACF current (i.e anarchist communism influenced by left communist ideas on national liberation, trade unions etc) by people leaving the labour party and the swp. And the other was people finding a home in labour and local council politics based on the sort of crude identity politics within many local CLPs and labour ran councils - and just staying there until post-97.

There are at least four posters on here who went through all this stuff as participants aside from Bob (RIP) and i hope they read this and fill in the gaps and mistakes in the above.
 
This is also interesting, a review of Vivek Chibber's new book 'Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital', a critique of 'Subaltern Studies', which has undoubtedly had an influence on a lot of the identity / privilege / intersectionalista politics: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/3937

That's an excellent piece. I've put the Chibber book here - (not best version ever but perfectly readable) and the Chakrabarty book it is reply to is here. I've also added this excellent related piece from Chibber on The Decline of Class analysis in South Asian Studies.
 
Another interesting suggestion from Chibber that fits with a number of the points made earlier in the thread around the birth/growth of intersectionality - here he is replying to why he thinks post-colonial studies have become so influential in anglophone 'intellectual left':

In my view, the prominence is strictly for social and historical reasons; it doesn’t express the value or worth of the theory, and that’s why I decided to write the book. I think postcolonial theory rose to prominence for a couple of reasons. One is that after the decline of the labor movement and the crushing of the Left in the 1970s, there wasn’t going to be any kind of prominent theory in academia that focused on capitalism, the working class, or class struggle. Many people have pointed this out: in university settings, it’s just unrealistic to imagine that any critique of capitalism from a class perspective is going to have much currency except in periods when there’s massive social turmoil and social upheaval.

So the interesting question is why there’s any kind of theory calling itself radical at all, since it’s not a classical anticapitalist theory. I think this has to do with two things: first, with changes in universities over the last thirty years or so, in which they’re no longer ivory towers like they used to be. They’re mass institutions, and these institutions have been opened up to groups that, historically, were kept outside: racial minorities, women, immigrants from developing countries. These are all people who experience various kinds of oppression, but not necessarily class exploitation. So there is, as it were, a mass base for what we might call oppression studies, which is a kind of radicalism — and it’s important, and it’s real. However, it’s not a base that’s very interested in questions of class struggle or class formation, the kinds of things that Marxists used to talk about.

Complementing this has been the trajectory of the intelligentsia. The generation of ’68 didn’t become mainstream as it aged. Some wanted to keep its moral and ethical commitments to radicalism. But like everyone else, it too steered away from class-oriented radicalism. So you had a movement from the bottom, which was a kind of demand for theories focusing on oppression, and a movement on top, which was among professors offering to supply theories focusing on oppression. What made them converge wasn’t just a focus on oppression, but the excision of class oppression and class exploitation from the story. And postcolonial theory, because of its own excision of capitalism and class — because it downplays the dynamics of exploitation — is a very healthy fit.
 
None of the greats of postcolonial theory - the Dipesh Chakrabartys, Edward Saids, Partha Chatterjees, Paul Gilroys etc - can ever say what it really is.

No one as yet has written in a fashion I can understand.
 
Somebody posted this on facebook today; doesn't explicitly say 'journalist' but it resonates in many ways re: Penny and the 'radical journalist' bubble:

" The academic, social worker, lawyer etc. may wish to attack capital but they characteristically do so by premising their resistance on the continued existence of their own role in a way unthinkable to the working class individual. Thus there are radical psychologists, radical philosophers, radical lawyers and so on,[26] but not radical bricklayers or radical roadsweepers! The latter are simply radical people who wish to escape their condition. By contrast, the former wish to engage in the struggle while at the same time retaining their middle class identities, including their specialized skills and roles. As such, their participation presupposes rather than fundamentally challenges the institutions and social relations that provide the basis of these identities.[27] It is no coincidence, it seems to us, that the leading figures of a post-autonomia scene which rejects (or at least neglects) the situationists' critique of roles and academia, and which redefines all areas of life - including academia - as working class, are themselves academics.[28]"

 
And I'd be very surprised if she's read James Kelman. They have nothing in common.
LP said:
I'm not the best-read person I know by any means, but because of the way I read I'm one of the widest-read
That's you told. Did you read that Kelman essay? I wouldn't say she plagiarised it but the similarities were striking, put it that way.

If she's really 'more Irish than English' as she claims then she should be forced to read Peig (and Toraiocht Dhiarmada Agus Grainne) like the rest of us. :mad:
 
I did.

What did you find striking in particular?
The bits about heroes, protaganists and expectations, how Kelman refers to token working class characters as "oddballs" while LP claims female characters were often "freaks". Of course it's problematic for LP that she's a product of the class and type of school that dominated the type of literature that Kelman is on about, but she can blank that out no problem. "Class analysis! - Evanesco!" Pffft!
Kelman said:
It is a peculiar thing that children like myself could identify with the pupils in those schools. I mean it was inconceivable that I would ever in my life meet up with boys from my own background, my culture and life experience, between these pages. Im not talking about Scottish kids in general Im talking about Scottish working class kids in general because it was possible to meet a scholarship boy or a boy from a colonial background, whether from Scotland or India or someplace. I cannot remember any African or Chinese boys making an entrance but perhaps it was possible, perhaps it did happen. These colonial boys would all be youthful aristocrats anyhow, back in their own country, even if they wore kilts, loin cloths or turbans, or whatever, they would be accepted as lower-rung aristocracy, and kids like Billy Bunter would give them the benefit of the doubt.

The English language as spoken by these young colonials always exhibited idiosyncratic mannerisms that were quite funny. They were exotic creatures and never made it as heroes in their own right. At the same time they were always supportive and loyal to boys such as Harry Wharton and Tom Merry. Kids like myself would identify with the last pair and other members of that regular cast of young English heroes, white christians to the core. There was no chance of me ever making a hero out of the exotic young colonials, even if one did happen to be Scottish. At eleven or twelve years of age who wants to be an oddball outsider with no sense of style and a funny way of talking.

In our society we are not used to thinking of literature as a form of art that might concern the day-to-day existence of ordinary women and men, whether these ordinary women and men are the subjects of the poetry and stories, or the actual writers themselves. It is something we do not expect. And why should we? There is such a barrage of elitist nonsense spoken and written about literature that anything else would be surprising.

But should we expect anything else? Should we expect those in control of power in society to promote and encourage a literature that is explicitly concerned with the day-to-day existence of ordinary women and men? and by ordinary here the context is run-of-the mill day-to-day experience, as experienced by the overwhelming majority of the population.

LP said:
Men grow up expecting to be the hero of their own story. Women grow up expecting to be the supporting actress in somebody else's. As a kid growing up with books and films and stories instead of friends, that was always the narrative injustice that upset me more than anything else. It's a feeling that hit when I understood how few girls got to go on adventures. I started reading science fiction and fantasy long before Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, before mainstream female leads very occasionally got more at the end of the story than together with the protagonist. Sure, there were tomboys and bad girls, but they were freaks and were usually killed off or married off quickly. Lady hobbits didn't bring the ring to Mordor. They stayed at home in the shire.

Not being sure what story you're in anymore is a different experience depending on whether or not you were expecting to be the hero of that story. Low-status men, and especially women and girls, often don't have that expectation. We expect to be forgettable supporting characters, or sometimes, if we're lucky, attainable objects to be slung over the hero's shoulder and carried off the end of the final page.
Like I said I could be wrong but I wouldn't put anything past her. If there's one thing I know about ambitious private schoolsorts, it's that they're fantastic cheats, due in part to unshakeable chutzpah and a rabid sense of entitlement.
 
Some shitheads have actually turned it into a subculture in which there is 24 role playing of "dominant" and "submissive" roles.

The whole thing is quite positively sick-making.


Richard Morgan takes the piss out of it all in his two Ringil Eskiath books (which are half baked). It's quite funny to see the fantasy genre turned upside down, inside out and then ridiculed. There's a bit of chin stroking going on between the lines that is missed because of the homoerotic anti-hero being the vehicle but it is quite well done. I bet there was a few people who got a shock they expected your normal run of the mill sword n sandal fantasy / scifi crossover and got full on hardcore gay sex with ancient aliens.

I think Morgan studied philosophy for a couple of years before switching to contemporary history (yes at Cambridge) which is why there's always an air of the political in his work but it's very rarely well executed. Still... Altered Carbon is one of the best sci-fis I've read and it features Quellcrist Falconer's gems :D

I love his trilogy, I really do but it's so... I dunno, maybe this will explain better:

“Every previous revolutionary movement in human history has made the same basic mistake. They’ve all seen power as a static apparatus, as a structure. And it’s not. It’s a dynamic, a flow system with two possible tendencies. Power either accumulates, or it diffuses through the system. In most societies, it’s in accumulative mode, and most revolutionary movements are only really interested in reconstituting the accumulation in a new location. A genuine revolution has to reverse the flow. And no one ever does that, because they’re all too fucking scared of losing their conning tower moment in the historical process. If you tear down one agglutinative power dynamic and put another one in its place, you’ve changed nothing. You’re not going to solve any of that society’s problems, they’ll just reemerge at a new angle. You’ve got to set up the nanotech that will deal with the problems on its own. You’ve got to build the structures that allow for diffusion of power, not re-grouping. Accountability, demodynamic access, systems of constituted rights, education in the use of political infrastructure”


“The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under it with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes - between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.

Quellcrist Falconer
Things I Should Have Learned by Now, Volume II”


See what I mean?

Anyway, not sure what my point was there - just rambling as I wait for my jacket potato.
 
The bits about heroes, protaganists and expectations, how Kelman refers to token working class characters as "oddballs" while LP claims female characters were often "freaks". Of course it's problematic for LP that she's a product of the class and type of school that dominated the type of literature that Kelman is on about, but she can blank that out no problem. "Class analysis! - Evanesco!" Pffft!

But he doesn't really talk of wc characters, he talks of characters who are not middle-class English, but middle-class something else, Scottish, Indian, and how their 'oddballness' creates a normalising of middle-class English culture and a normalising of the middle-class English voice, the voice of the powerful in the stories he read as a child, and as the one and only voice of LITERATURE. He's talking about how ideology works, through literature, by creating an identification with the oppressor, and silencing working-class people's natural voices. For Kelman, writing is about getting to grips with reality, and he must use his natural voice to do that. It's a political act.

Whereas LP is talking about...what a shame it is that there aren't more powerful female characters that she can identify with to escape reality and go on some adventures.
 
But he doesn't really talk of wc characters, he talks of characters who are not middle-class English, but middle-class something else,
Yes, my error, I had meant to correct that. But the point stands, it's possible that LP read Kelman's essay and eviscerated it to suit her nefariously trite purposes.
 
It's possible, I suppose, but they're just such different arguments I don't get that at all. He's arguing that art should be about the truth of ordinary life; she's arguing that girls should be heroes in stories of their own making. They're on different planets. Which doesn't mean she's not capable of using an idea and emptying it of its meaning, it's just that I can't even imagine she'd be interested in Kelman in the first place.
 
Richard Morgan takes the piss out of it all in his two Ringil Eskiath books (which are half baked). It's quite funny to see the fantasy genre turned upside down, inside out and then ridiculed. There's a bit of chin stroking going on between the lines that is missed because of the homoerotic anti-hero being the vehicle but it is quite well done. I bet there was a few people who got a shock they expected your normal run of the mill sword n sandal fantasy / scifi crossover and got full on hardcore gay sex with ancient aliens.

I think Morgan studied philosophy for a couple of years before switching to contemporary history (yes at Cambridge) which is why there's always an air of the political in his work but it's very rarely well executed. Still... Altered Carbon is one of the best sci-fis I've read and it features Quellcrist Falconer's gems :D

I love his trilogy, I really do but it's so... I dunno, maybe this will explain better:







See what I mean?

Anyway, not sure what my point was there - just rambling as I wait for my jacket potato.
You might find this interesting (spoilers for season 2 of Game of Thrones)


Also NSFW
 
Pulling together a number of the strands of this thread:

Help Defend Jacobin

On July 10, the left-wing magazine Jacobin published an article by Samantha Allen titled "CounterPunch and the War on Transgender People," which challenged a strand of radical feminism whose proponents, in Allen's words, see a transgender woman as someone who "invades 'real' women's spaces and perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes," and who acts "as a blight on the feminist movement."

In particular, Allen singled out Catherine Brennan as a leading proponent of trans-exclusive radical feminism--to the extent that Brennan has argued "against legal protections based on 'gender identity or expression,'" according to Allen. Allen also cited the CounterPunch website for publishing an article by Julian Vigo that defended Brennan and condescendingly attacked transgender activists for daring to criticize those who consider them a "blight."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom