Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Feminism

International Marxist Tendency Dispute over alleged “harassment, abuse, and violence” in Canadian Fightback and Ted Grant’s views on Homosexuality.

with 5 comments

The International Marxist Tendency (IMT) is one of a number of Trotskyist Internationals. From the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) which claims to be refoundation of Committee for a Workers’ International (1974) to the Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (CERCI) Apart from the Fourth International, they are nearly all focused on one parent body.

In the IMT the leading group, excluded from the Labour Party, is Socialist Appeal (SA). SA was founded by Ted Grant, the leader of the Militant Tendency, an historic figure in Trotskyism, known for his briefcases of paper clippings and Trotsky tomes. It broke from the group which created the Socialist Party, whose project, the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, is even better known to readers of this Blog. Grant did not believe in the new party, and kept on working within Labour. After Grant’s passing the mantle passed to Alan Woods who has successfully advised the Venezuelan Chavista Revolution and demolished the anti-dialectical Big Bang Theory. The IMT’s French section, Révolution, (who call their journal Socialisme ou Barbarie) is teaching La France insoumise a thing or too. They participated in the “Enorme succès de l’Université marxiste internationale” in July,

There are around 30 sections of the IMT. In Canada they have the name Fightback. In February this year the Spartacists described them as follows, “Among the pseudo-Trotskyist swamp in Quebec and Canada, members of the Fightback group have distinguished themselves as the most ardent supporters of Trudeau’s lockdowns and vociferous opponents of the truckers and protesters.” (Socialist” Fightback: Social-Trudeauites)

Normally this would make the Tendance immediately sympathetic to the group, buy their paper, and perhaps even read it.

Alas, Fightback have become embroiled in an unpleasant dispute which has got progressively worse over the last few weeks and looks set to mark the coming autumn political rentrée.

Why I Left Fightback

Content warning: abuse, sexual assault, transphobia, violence

Jamie Graham

“In early 2018, I joined Fightback/La Riposte Socialiste, the Canadian section of the International Marxist Tendency. I was in my first year of university. I had seen the grief, misery, and exploitation of capitalism firsthand, and I was excited to join an organization of other like-minded people working to overthrow this system and build something better. Unfortunately, my ability to participate in the organization was disrupted by numerous experiences of harassment, abuse, and violence. These experiences on their own would not have necessarily made me resign – I understand that socialist organizations exist within the broader context of capitalism, and that this makes interpersonal harm inevitable to a degree. However, after witnessing the completely inadequate, misogynistic, and careless ways that Fightback’s leadership responds to allegations, I felt that I was unable to continue my involvement in good conscience.

Fightback has replied to the serious charges in the open letter:

Fightback responds to allegations: Lessons for the movement

FIGHTBACK | JUL 22, 2022

Recently, an “open letter” was published online by an ex-member that contains serious allegations against Fightback and the International Marxist Tendency. In it, we are accused of sweeping gendered violence “under the rug”. We are supposedly also complicit in “very real sexual exploitation, victim-blaming, and abuse apologia”. This is absolutely false as we will demonstrate in this statement. We have a zero tolerance policy for abuse or harassment. We insist on investigating every case and when guilt is established we take swift action—and that is what we have done in these instances. 

Towards the end of the response they state,

This is clearly an attempt by postmodern identity politics partisans to destroy the largest Marxist organization in the country. With references to the ISO (who liquidated after covering up a sexual assault case) and the British SWP (who are a shadow of their former selves after protecting one of their leading members who was accused of rape) the open letter attempts to play on people’s emotions to attack our organization. But the facts stand out and people can see that these accusations don’t withstand the slightest scrutiny. Unlike these other organizations we dealt with abuse, and unlike them we have not capitulated to postmodern identity politics.

Many would say this kind of attack on alleged partisans of “postmodern [remember that one, back in the 1990s?] identity politics” does not help. Not being in any position to comment on the details of the cases we refer people to the articles above and to this.

Of wider interest is the following:

A political attack

“The political nature of these criticisms is obvious in the letter written by an ex-member, where the only individuals who are named are political leaders of the IMT: Alex Grant, Ted Grant and Alan Woods. Curiously, the names of the abusers are absent. People must ask themselves: why is this? If the purpose of the letter is to deal with abuse and protect people, wouldn’t the abusers themselves be named, and not the IMT’s political figures (one of whom is now deceased)?

At the beginning of the letter, it is claimed that in our recruitment meetings we ask people “if they agree with the organization’s stance against ‘call-out culture’.” This is not something that we raise in recruitment meetings so we can only assume that what the author really means is our staunch opposition to identity politics, which we do discuss with every new recruit in depth. Starting with this, the letter weaves a story, connecting facts, half-truths and outright falsehoods to portray a completely false picture of our organization and our politics. “

The final crescendo is a whole slew of baseless political critiques of the IMT. It is claimed that Ted Grant, the main theoretical founder of the IMT, was of the opinion that homosexuality would disappear under socialism. But the links provided do not provide one ounce (Translation, roughly 28 grams) of evidence to back up this claim. The letter quotes Alan Woods, who was criticizing the abandonment of a class position by the SWP in the 1960s, and tries to claim that therefore the IMT does not fight against oppression in all of its forms. The dishonesty of this is clear for all to see and anyone who follows our website and participates in our activities on the ground will know that this is completely false

This is what she said,

Militant under Ted Grant, the IMT’s organizational and ideological predecessor, believed homosexuality was a capitalist aberration that would “disappear” under socialism and fought against programs aimed to combat racial discrimination while it held power in Liverpool (more sources herehere and here). The organization has rebranded as simply holding “principled criticisms” of “liberal identity politics”, and now opportunistically attempts to recruit young activists mobilized by struggles against racism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, but the chauvinism at its core remains the same. 

This is one of Graham’s principal sources:

 The best that the Militant/CWI/Socialist Party can say is that no-one can prove anything because they never wrote it down. Prominent members like Ted Grant did openly say that homosexuality was a capitalist deviation which would “disappear” under socialism, but the Militant never actually stated this in their party literature. That doesn’t mean many didn’t think it. When Grant & Co split from the Militant, their members got to retrospectively claim that all the homophobia was his fault and they had always loved the gays. Countless testimonies from former Militant members and those who encountered them tell a different story. The lack of evidence of the existence of a “party line” on homosexuality is frankly bizarre in an organisation like the Militant, which had a position on everything.  If a position didn’t exist, it would be reasonable to ask why not.  It certainly leads people to the conclusion that none of those groups really took LGBT rights at all seriously.


Juan Mac.

Fightback continues:

Written by Andrew Coates

August 1, 2022 at 4:35 pm

Latest Gender Wars Reach the Labour Party.

with 14 comments

Over the last few days the disputes about Gender have come back to the fore. These include the fallout from the closure of the Tavistock gender identity clinic and the transfer to early adopter hubs in London and Manchester (with others planned) , the continuing controversy about the impact of Stonewall’s line on gender identity, and some unpleasant right-wing protests against Drag Queen Story Hour for school children.

First reactions, the fact that the rows are dominated by the likes of the Spectator, the Mail, their sister web site, Spiked, Julie Bindel (who writes for the far right Mail these days), not to mention the LBG campaign (described as “a conservative hate group”), make one wish to brush the whole lot aside. And the Patriotic Alternative are extreme right, full stop.

That is to ignore them. We can be good ignoring, like – the unreadable – contrary attempts to synthesise ‘Marxism’ with Georges Bataille, in Transgender Marxism, Jules Joanne GleesonElle O’Rourke.

We are very happy to be publishing this extract from the introduction of Transgender Marxism, published by Pluto Press.

Transgender Marxism focuses wilfully on that which others might dismiss as vulgar, inappropriate, besides-the-political. It aims to provide a materialist account of the distinctive conditions of lack in which we find ourselves, and to help us wriggle free through unlikely means.

“Meanwhile, brought back to the subterranean action of economic facts, the ‘old-mole’ revolution hollows out chambers in a decomposed soil repugnant to the delicate nose of the utopians.‘Old mole’, Marx’s resounding expression for the complete satisfaction of the revolutionary outburst of the masses, must be understood in relation to the notion of a geological uprising as expressed in the Communist Manifesto. Marx’s point of departure has nothing to do with the heavens, preferred station of the imperialist eagle as of Christian or revolutionary utopias. He begins with the bowels of the earth, as in the materialist bowels of proletarians.”

Following the mole’s tracks, Transgender Marxism unearths the base needs of trans proles and brings them above ground, into clearer view.

Much work remains to be done expanding the earthy, intestinal visions of Marx and his successors outwards, moving from the bowels towards the glands and receptors that make up our endocrine system. Transition, too, must come to be understood by revolutionaries as a response to its own form of hunger. The longings that drive so many to reforge lives for ourselves that leave us thoroughly proletarianised, or cast out, rendered surplus. Those cravings and cavings-in that clinicians have long attempted to desiccate under the catch-all term ‘dysphoria’.

I note simply – having read Bataille and have some of his books on the shelves – that “the notion of “excess” energy is central to Bataille’s thinking. Bataille’s inquiry takes the superabundance of energy, beginning from the infinite outpouring of solar energy or the surpluses produced by life’s basic chemical reactions, as the norm for organisms. In other words, an organism in Bataille’s general economy, unlike the rational actors of classical economy who are motivated by scarcity, normally has an “excess” of energy available to it.”

This is about as materialist and Marxist as Henri Bergson’s élan vital (vital force). As a concept wedded to “base materialism” and transgression it is so far from historically or socially explaining gender, or gender fluidity, not to mention patriarchy, and why there is such a thing as feminism, that it is hard to take seriously. This is a view this Bog has expressed before, and we refer to the ever helpful Google to find critiques to bear this out.

But: first there is this, in the liberal left of centre Observer today:

Don’t buy the Stonewall line on gender identity? Fine. You can’t be sacked for that now

Sonia Sodha

“You might think the last place to harbour unlawful discrimination would be a barristers’ chambers that prides itself on “defending human rights and upholding the rule of law”. But the employment tribunal last week found that Garden Court Chambers discriminated against and victimised its tenant Allison Bailey on account of her “gender critical” beliefs.”

Apart from discussing the Allison Bailey case Sodha raises serious issues about Stonewall.

But by far the worst example has been in children’s healthcare. Gender ideology posits the view that when children express discomfort about their sexed bodies, this must be understood as an indicator of a fixed trans identity that should be immediately affirmed as the basis of any clinical treatment for gender dysphoria. Stonewall claims that children as young as two can have trans identities, which, given they can barely speak, is revealing of the extent to which adult identity politics is being imposed on children who do not conform to regressive gender stereotypes.

Non followers of Twitter may not know that the reference to children is from this:

In this context it is hard not to agree with this protest against the Labour Party decision not to allow a gender critical stall at the annual conference:

Written by Andrew Coates

July 31, 2022 at 3:39 pm

Spy-Cops, Helen Steel talks of “disgusting and inhumane abuse.”

with 10 comments

There is a must-read interview with comrade Helen Steel in the Guardian today:

It was as if he set out to destroy my sanity’: how the spy cops lied their way into women’s hearts – and beds

Amelia Gentleman

For years, undercover officers from the Metropolitan police deceived and manipulated female activists such as McDonald’s campaigner Helen Steel. Her new book reveals their callous tricks

With hindsight, the environmental activist Helen Steel, a key figure in the 1990s McLibel case, can see that her life with John Dines was suspiciously idyllic.

When they met, at a London Greenpeace meeting in the late 1980s, she was spending her free time protesting against nuclear weapons at Greenham Common, or staying in mining villages supporting striking miners. Soon he was enthusiastically joining her on hunt saboteur trips to disrupt grouse shoots in Yorkshire, or on demonstrations against the poll tax, and spending his weekends with her, helping to campaign against the environmental record of McDonald’s.

It was only decades after their relationship ended that she began to understand that they got on so well because Dines was using a battery of grooming techniques perfected by colleagues in an undercover police division. The undercover officers in Dines’s unit presented themselves as vulnerable and alone in the world; often they would say they were recently bereaved or estranged from their families, preying on the women’s good nature, inviting their sympathy and love.

“The public inquiry has been bending over backwards to protect the privacy and feelings of the former undercover officers. There is no concern for our privacy and our right to know,” Steel says. “We all want answers. If the police want to raid someone’s house, they have to apply for a warrant and they have to set out the reasons why they need to search the house. But with these relationships, no warrants needed to be applied for. They were living in our houses and they had access to everything we had in our homes; they had access to the contents of our heads. They could ask us whatever questions they wanted and we would answer – believing they were our trusted partners, not an undercover cop trying to get information. It was disgusting and inhumane abuse.”

The spy who duped me

The full story of how Helen Steel and other women were deceived into relationships with undercover police spies is only now being told.

By Mark Metcalf

Deep Deception: The Story of the Spycop Network by the Women who Uncovered the Shocking Truth is published by Ebury

When McLibel campaigner Helen Steel was finally able, in Sydney in 2016, to confront John Dines, the undercover police officer who tricked her into a long relationship in the early 1990s, she still retained remote hopes he might have had genuinely loving feelings for her during their time together. Perhaps he even shared some of her anti-capitalist beliefs.

“I said to him that he knew I was in a really bad state when he left and asked why did he still pretend to care for me rather than put me out of my misery and say he was never coming back,” says Steel.

“‘What did I have? All I had was a van,’ was his initial reply. When I pressed him further he responded dismissively by saying: ‘I’m sorry, I had a really shit time too. It – the whole thing – messed my head up and I just wanted to put it behind me and make a new start.’ I had this realisation that he was a completely selfish bastard and he had not cared one bit for me.”

Now the full story of this abusive relationship – and the cases of four other campaigners conned by officers of the highly secretive Metropolitan Police unit the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) into similar relationships, all sanctioned at the highest levels of the state – is being told in a new book.

“To my surprise, and after years of finding nothing, a document popped up with his signature on the bottom.”

The title Deep Deception was collectively chosen by the five women. “From amongst many possibilities it best conveys our experiences. The level of deception and the discovery of it really had a serious psychological impact on everyone,” explains Steel, who has though courageously fought back. The widespread use of the officers from the SDS, formed in 1968, to undermine movements of social justice, environmental campaigns, trade unions and political organisations continues to be exposed at the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI).

When Steel first met Dines in late 1987 at London Greenpeace, he claimed he was John Barker and infiltrated the environmental group after the exit of SDS officer Bob Lambert, a Greenpeace member from 1983 to 1987.

“Lambert, or Robinson as we knew him, was involved in writing the 1986 anti-McDonald’s leaflet that me and Dave Morris were sued over,” says Steel. “John was involved in the anti-McDonald’s campaign, and in the McLibel Support campaign and our legal defence.”

The leaflet alleged that McDonald’s exploited children through its advertising, promoted unhealthy food, paid low wages, was anti-union and was responsible for animal cruelty and environmental damage. The libel campaign was the longest such case in English history and lasted over a decade. At the conclusion some of the leaflet’s contested claims were found to be libellous and others, such as McDonald’s endangering the health of workers and exploiting children, were true. The company also paid its workers poorly and inflicted unnecessary cruelty on animals.

Deep Deception reveals that Dines waited two years before asking Steel to go out with him. He had slowly been building up a relationship with Steel, a gardener, by dropping her off last in his van when he drove fellow activists home from meetings. It was a common tactic by undercover officers, including Mark Jenner, who was to have a five-year relationship with Alison, a political activist at the Colin Roach Centre in Hackney. The case of Jenner, known as Cassidy at the time, has been explored in a series of Big Issue North articles dating back to January 2011.

“John told me in Sydney that he was tasked with reporting on everything that was going on in the North London anti-capitalist, animal rights, poll tax and environmental movements – everything that was a bit alternative. I did not go out with him until 1990. If I had known he was using me to spy on groups of people whose politics I shared then I would never have had a relationship with him,” says Steel, who now lives in the North.

As the relationship became more intense, Barker told Steel he wanted to have children. It was a con. After a period when he would mysteriously disappear for short periods, citing his mental state, the undercover cop left permanently in late 1992. Steel was distraught.

In the book she describes how in early 1993 “I felt both physically and mentally spent. John’s disappearance still consumed my thoughts every day.” Her attempts to find him floundered.

Read Full Article via above link.

It is deeply unfortunate that forces hostile to the values of the left, the labour movement, and socialism are still attacking, sometimes violently, Comrade Helen Steel and her friends for their present-day feminist ‘gender critical’ views.

Written by Andrew Coates

May 11, 2022 at 11:37 am