Some history and materialism
background on Sydney’s 2013 Historical Materialism conference and debates over ‘no-platforming’ the SWP
Since matters in the Socialist Workers’ Party have come to what seems a final if protracted turn, I’m releasing the three emails I sent to the organisers of the 2013 Historical Materialism conference in Sydney. The upshot of those discussions was this Open Letter. I’ll also fill in some of the gaps in what has already been made public.
I had been asked to speak on the closing session alongside Steve Wright and Warren Montag, and to hold an additional panel on my book. I found out after I queried the organisers about whether or not they had invited someone from Solidarity (the AU franchise of the Socialist Workers’ Party) to speak—and had made clear my reluctance to share a platform with them—that they had put someone from Solidarity on the closing session without having informed me in the meantime. The ‘meantime’ being the time in which much of this came into public view with mass resignations in the UK.
This was someone who was to represent a political organisation that had, for some time, been running a fever-pitched campaign against what they described as the “autonomist contagion” and “liberal feminism.” They were not there to speak as an individual but as a representative of the SWP/Solidarity (see below). Solidarity had already decided to give its unconditional support to the SWP, and by their own rules were bound to support their parent organisation (the SWP) in public.
Given the book I had been asked to present (Contract & Contagion: From Biopolitics to Oikonomia), I have to say that it was difficult to see how this was an environment in which it might be possible to have a serious, scholarly and let alone comradely conversation about much. If I knew some of what had been happening in the SWP prior to it all tipping out as resignations began, I nevertheless could sense the heightened sectarianism flailing about in all directions. And I honestly did not feel as if I would be missing out on hearing about ‘new Marxist research’ if this was the calibre of politics being elevated at the conference.
The eventual result is that—after a month of being delayed in doing so, evasions and more than a few attempts to muddy the waters—I and others withdrew from the conference and publicly stated our reasons. Others have called it a boycott and suggested it was “sectarian.” As if the accusations were a factional plot. The biggest problem, it seems, was talking openly and critically about what everyone who had an internet connection already knew.
But back in the real world, this ignores the fact that the organisers of the conference went from having no one from the SWP/Solidarity at the closing session, to adding someone from that organisation to the closing session when asked what they thought of the SWP’s position (while insisting it was only one person from Solidarity speaking), to it eventually being revealed that the SWP/Solidarity were the most-represented political grouping at the conference. They had in other words been attempting to deny the prominence they had given to the SWP/Solidarity at the conference.
To be honest, I do not know if Solidarity’s predominance was always the case between the time I had been invited to the time I asked the organisers about the SWP’s/Solidarity’s involvement. Either it was not, in which case it seems that the organisers of the conference decided to give them increasing standing in the face of criticisms of them. Or it was always the case, and then the conference organisers had been less than honest when attempting to reassure people that there was “only one” person speaking from the SWP/Solidarity. There was, as the discussion here makes clear, also never any evidence offered that any of these members of Solidarity were ever something other than loyal defenders of the SWP’s position, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
In any event the issue about dissenting members of the SWP/Solidarity was irrelevant. We all knew that public criticism of their party’s position would result in expulsion or similar punishment. These are the SWP’s and Solidarity’s organisational rules, not mine. To my way of thinking, if they were genuinely dissenting, where was the courage? Hundreds, most of the student branches in the UK and other franchises elsewhere, had resigned en masse already. So in the meantime, whether or not they were privately critical made no difference to the conduct of a public event. If they were obliged to state their party’s position on the handling of gendered violence, then the rest of us were obliged to respond to them not as individuals but as representatives of that frankly awful position.
This is how the dynamics of the cover-up marshaled hundreds of activists and reached all the way across the globe. It meant that the only way to not be implicated in this would be to no-platform the SWP/Solidarity or withdraw.
There are also a number of people outside the SWP and Solidarity who gave papers at the conference and have insisted privately that they do not support the SWP’s handing of accusations of rape and sexual harassment against a senior member. Yet such claims made in private have been contradicted by public alignment with the SWP and the absence of public criticism—by people who are not subject to the SWP’s/Solidarity’s rules. This alone should raise questions about what people’s politics are; and given the degree of fudging that has been apparent, these are not answered by what they say to whichever private ear they have at any given time.
Initially, I was prompted to query the organisers of HistMat2013 because it had become clear that the SWP was actively engaged in marginalising its critics both within and outside that organisation. At times with force. Had in fact been hijacking people’s attachment to causes and events as a means to shield itself from criticism. Had, despite claims that their position was based on mistrust of the police’s handling of rape accusations, threatened to call the police on a small group of hecklers.
In other words, the cover-up had begun to implicate everyone in deciding who should be made to feel welcome in various spaces, including conferences which are simultaneously political and academic, and therefore subject to both political considerations and workplace guidelines regarding sexual harassment, and worse. On occasions such as this, it comes down to a question about who is marginalised from those spaces and who is made to feel comfortable in them. The organisers of HistMat2013 insisted that even though Solidarity had decided to loyally defend the decisions of the Socialist Workers’ Party’s Central Committee that they should be made to feel more than welcome in the name of (ironically) “diversity.” More welcome, in material terms and when it comes down to it, than those who would publicly criticise them.
In other words, whatever the organisers of HistMat2013 said they were doing, what they did in practice was marginalise public criticisms of the SWP/Solidarity.
The emails below chart increasing frustration with the decision of the organisers of HistMat2013 to fudge matters and close ranks around the SWP/Solidarity. They were written not to persuade the organisers of what they should do—though I did lose patience at some of the excuses being put forward. They were written so that I could have enough accurate information to know what I was being asked to be involved in and to decide whether I would have to change my mind after having agreed to speak. That in itself proved difficult and frustrating. Given what I found out then, and more so what I found out later, I would do the same again.
Congratulations should go to the organisers on siding with those who would not only shelter abusers, but those who have run sustained campaigns of vilification that—among other things—accused young women of being ‘capitalist stooges,’ ‘MI5 agents’ and ‘liberal feminists’ if they complain about their abuse by a senior member. During these discussions, the conference organisers were well aware of what was happening inside and around the SWP, and Solidarity’s unconditional support of it. Giving free rein to such inverted persecution fantasies whose aim is the violent marginalisation of criticism will never produce an environment in which either diversity, interesting research or critical scholarship can flourish.
As far as I know, and in the absence of any public statements to the contrary, Solidarity continue to be staunch supporters of the Socialist Workers’ Party. I am not holding my breath.
After the Open Letter was posted, I am given to understand that the conference organisers approached a number of people, including some of those who had signed the letter, and asked them to deliver presentations for a session on ‘sexual violence and the Left.’ Perhaps those who did were flattered, gullible or in one way or another supportive of the practice of friends of accused rapists assuming the authority to decide whether someone consented to sex. Who knows. For my part, I have no qualms about insisting that an organisation whose members cheer loudly at the suggestion that “women and children lie” about rape could not be part of a serious discussion on this and should not be given a platform. I am not surprised I was not asked and I do not feel as if I missed out.
As a more personal postscript: Ultimately, even beyond reading the horrifying catalogue of abuses and denials, and well beyond having experienced the SWP’s routinely less-than-honest approach to political debate within the movements for a very long time, three things came together to decided the matter for me without reservation. The first was that the problem of abuse could not be quarantined from understandings of exploitation Marxists claim to be opposed to. Indeed, this was the point of much of my recent thinking and writing, so there could be no question of prioritising giving a conference paper over this, since this is what I would be talking about in any event.
The second was watching the group of young hecklers at the Bedroom Tax rally in Glasgow get roughed up by SWP marshals while noting that the ‘marital rape exemption’ (ie., wives as sexual property of their husbands) had been abolished in the UK as recently as 1991—until that time, common law meant that consent could only be revoked by an act of the parliament. The SWP’s politics on rape seem reactionary because they are in many ways a real reaction to the loss of entitlement and the limit placed on ‘availability.’
The third moment was realising that people both in the UK and in Australia who I knew and who were close to the SWP/Solidarity were expressing much the same views and approaches on the politics of rape at the very same time—which is to say, the more insistent the SWP became over the last few years in covering up the accusations against a senior member of theirs, the more energy they invested in persuading others, as far afield as in Australia and outside their own organisation, that this amounted to some kind of abstract political principle worth defending and elaborating. In doing so, it seemed to me that they all abandoned any connection to a transformative politics and allied themselves with power. I did not want to be a part of that and could not have been had I tried.
So, to my part in discussion with the conference organisers … And just to be clear, in the exchanges below, the conference organisers were David McInerney, Jessica Whyte, Rory Dufficy, Jonathon Collerson, and Steve Wright. Steve Wright was one of those who, to his credit, withdrew from the conference.
———— Original Message ————
Date: Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Subject: HistMat2013
Dear David [McInerney], Jess [Whyte], Rory [Dufficy], Jonathon [Collerson], Steve [Wright], et al,
Some of you I don’t have current email addresses for, some of you I’ve not met or know, so apologies for the forwarding and if I got that wrong.
As far as I’ve gleaned, you’ve all been in some way organising the 2013 HistMat conference coming up in Sydney.
I’ll assume that you’re all more or less familiar with the recent spate of resignations from the SWP over their treatment of rape allegations against a senior member, the decision by various groups to subsequently ‘no-platform’ the organisation in the UK, the withdrawal by Delhi HistMat of its invitation to Alex Callinicos, and the more recent threats by SWP marshals (or is it ‘stewards’ in the UK?) to call the police on hecklers in Glasgow.
I don’t know if you have discussed any of this or what you think of it.
I take it that Solidarity is the local affiliate of the SWP.
Have you invited members of the SWP (UK) Solidarity to speak at the HistMat conference? Or, if you have not invited them, what’s your position on their involvement, or the involvement of anyone else affiliated with the IST?
———— Original Message ————
Subject: Re: Fwd: HistMat2013
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:07:49 +1100
Firstly, I was unaware of Solidarity’s statement in full support of the SWP CC’s until I saw the link that Steve emailed. <http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=33749>
That statement is appalling, indifensible and gives no indication of any self-awareness (let alone the capacity for empathy or honesty) on their part.
Secondly, I’m not sure what the point is of implying that there are any remaining SWP members on the HistMat Board, or that there have not been more than a hundred resignations from the SWP in the UK. It’s not like this is a secret.
As for following the example of the Delhi HistMat in no-platforming the SWP, I think the temporary inconveniencing of Solidarity members is a reasonable, mild and correct response to their continued inability to develop safer spaces, brazenly lying about what has happened when censorship fails, manipulating and resorting to expulsions at every turn, and expecting everyone in the movements to look the other way.
I do not think that the issue comes down to whether HistMat conferences can be funded without relying on people who are rightly horrified by the SWP’s actions.
If the Sydney HistMat conference is funded by the University of Sydney, then I would suggest considering that this institutions guidelines regarding duty of care, rape and sexual harassment become pertinent.
In any case, the suggestion that the ‘no-platforming’ of the SWP and Solidarity is “petty and unjust” strikes me as foolish (if changing the situation is any kind of aim), and lacking an accurate sense of proportion and responsibility.
The SWP and Solidarity are responsible for what has transpired and they are responsible for improving the situation if their standing is to improve at all. They have, however, at every turn made things worse. Which is why criticism has escalated into mass resignations and no-platforming. They have not even been able to manage a poorly-executed non-apology. What has been on display is dogmatism verging on dangerously disassociated. Well, hello world.
Just so we’re clear, ‘rape apologism’ is not about whether particular instances of rape have occured or not. I honestly have no way of knowing whether Comrade Delta is guilty. I assume that there are rapists on the Left, of course there are. The Left is not a safe place, but it can be made safer. So the specific case is not the issue we have to decide. ‘Rape apologism’ is about excusing rape and making victims feel like they will be ostracised, shamed or abused further if they talk to anyone about it. Rape apologists give rapists a free pass. This is why the SWP, and now Solidarity, stand accused of being rape apologists. I think that is indisputable given the evidence that has been made public.
If it is true that there are still any remaining members of the SWP or Solidarity who genuinely disagree with the positions taken by their respective CC’s, then I expect some material proof of this. I have lots of evidence of manipulation and worse.
This has been unfolding for almost two years publicly, and everyone has had time to consider the facts, come to a decision, make arrangements, and make their position known.
In any event, if there is still ‘internal’ disagreement and it is is genuine, then I would expect any remaining dissenters to both understand and welcome the temporary inconvenience of being no-platformed because it would bolster their case inside the organisations. Presumably they cannot effect changes without [typo, should read “with”] dwindling numbers, so pressure will have to come from outside, yes?
I sympathise with how difficult it must be to consider removing oneself from organisations or campaigns that people have spent sometimes years working for. But more importantly, I’m unclear about why I should feel more empathy toward those who’ve not found their political compass (as yet, and maybe never) as opposed to those who have already been excluded, expelled and slandered in the course of the SWP’s attempts to censor criticism of the organisation’s handling of a rape accusation. This is my sense of what is proportional.
I had been attempting to glean what Solidarity’s position was. I had been giving them the benefit of the doubt, But, as it turns out, I was not only steered [by Paddy Gibson] toward having those conversations in private, but I was misled, in private. I was also told [by Paddy Gibson in that brief dm chat] that Solidarity was not interested in making a public statement about the matter, which less than a day later I find out is untrue. I was also told that no one really cared about the issue and I was alone in this. Um, no: <>
That’s when I decided to email HistMat. I was, in short, treated to a very mild, but nevertheless distinctly manipulative version of shut-up-girly.
It’s a novel experience for me (kind of dumb on their part I thought), but it gave me a thankfully brief insight into how a young woman was persuaded that her interests would be best served by letting Comrade Delta’s friends involve themselves in deciding whether he was a rapist and what to do about it.
I mean, it is frankly bizarre from people who claim to be materialists. In the absence of any material evidence, we are all in danger of falling back on ‘he said/she said,’ prejudice, assumption, attachments and, not least, the power dynamics within organisations and groups. Is this really not clear to everyone? That’s a serious question, because it goes to whether everyone is clear about the difference between what creates an abusive cult and what might sustain a dynamic political organisation of whatever hue.
As for the “police and bourgeois courts” — I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, to be honest. It’s pretty clear to me that the SWP’s “critique” of rights, the police and courts is nothing but self-serving rubbish. A convenient fig leaf that rationalises treating younger members as — let’s be very blunt — their property while trying to hide that fact from the outside world. Forget about feminism, bourgeois rights and gender for the moment, because I can’t even see any critique of slavery let alone capitalist exploitation here.
I can wait for further statements from Solidarity, but empty reassurances that there are still reasonable people inside either the SWP or Solidarity who should not be no-platformed is evasion in the absence of any public evidence. Given I just experienced a fairly ham-fisted attempt at deflection, I am doubtful of the capacity of Solidarity members to be honest, especially in private conversations, so …
Finally, whether you set aside space at the conference to discuss the SWP crisis is your call. I don’t think the solution here is thinking about how to quarantine the issue. Indeed, all attempts to quarantine, silence, exlude critics of these practices has only resulted in the further marginalisation of the SWP.
For those of us who work in the university, these matters raise issues about the duty of care we have to students who we might encourage to participate in events hosted by the University.
For those of us involved in the movements, the question is whether those movements are capable of insisting that organisations who have shown no committment to creating safer spaces should be allowed to continue to use those movements as hunting grounds.
For my part, the question is clear. Do I stand with the young woman who found the courage and support after more than two years of her party attempting to shame her into silence, and the hundreds who have resigned since, or with those who haven’t yet discovered that communist politics does not mean that young activists should be the property of older political hacks who can barely pronounce surplus labour let alone understand it? By all means consider the rationale of the journal and the conference.
So, you tell me where Sydney HistMat stands. Sorry that turned into a too lengthy email, but I want to be clear.
———— Original Message ————
Date: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Subject: HistMat2013
I’m a bit confused by a few things in your response. I think I have been clear. Nowhere have I said that I want to punish anyone, I do not think the organisers of HistMat in Sydney are a united political body (I think, however, that it is remarkable it took me so much effort to find out who the organisers of HistMat in Sydney actually are), and I have no idea why you would characterise this as a dispute between different political tendencies that you’re being called upon to decide between.
I was asked to speak at a conference. I have been asking you whether or not Solidarity, given their position, have also been asked to speak or will be given a platform at HistMat.
I believe that whatever happens inside Solidarity is not my concern, and it will take some time to play out in any event. The longer that takes, however, the more people they involve in having to decide whether to protect Solidarity’s reputation or or distance themselves. As I am being asked to do now, since (without actually informing me) you tell me that I am quite literally being asked to share a platform with someone from Solidarity.
Email me when Angela Mitropoulos publishes or recommends stories