13.02.2014

Aggregate: Improving our democracy

Micky Coulter reports on the February 9 meeting of CPGB members

Our members’ aggregate dealt with questions concerning the organisation’s own internal functioning, and went on to discuss ‘intersectionality’ and identity politics. Both of these issues have taken on greater significance for the left in the wake of the crisis in the Socialist Workers Party.

Focusing on our internal life a motion drafted by comrade Daniel Harvey, and co-signed by three others, called for the circulation of “detailed and accurate” minutes of the Provisional Central Committee’s meetings, with an emphasis on reporting individual contributions and detailing any differences that exist. The motion stipulated that, while the PCC should have the right to redact “sensitive information”, such “redactions should be visible and the reasons shown”.

By way of background it is worth explaining that the CPGB produces every week a publicly available podcast summary of the PCC’s political discussions, which is presented at the party’s regular London communist forums as a basis for discussion. Additionally a weekly members’ report is issued, providing a summary of the discussion and decisions of the most recent PCC meeting.

In explaining his motion comrade Harvey stressed its context and overall purpose. The left is plagued by anti-democratic practice and inaccessible, unaccountable leaderships, and that the purpose of the motion was to reinforce the CPGB’s existing culture, which stands in powerful contrast to such practice - something that, as a newer member of the CPGB who had experienced first hand the methods of other groups, he could appreciate. He stated that the motion was surely almost “unopposable”, since it would reinforce our existing standards of democratic functioning and ensure that we showed by example what principled Marxist politics should look like. For him this motion was an “acid test” of the CPGB’s practice.

In the exhaustive debate that followed a number of common themes emerged. Noticeable was the fact that all comrades, whether for or against the motion, supported the sentiments behind it. Farzad Kamangar thought that it was good to have a healthy cynicism about leaderships, but wondered if the motion was motivated by some suspicion that the PCC was hiding something. She stressed that theoretical differences on the PCC can be identified in the spoken and written contributions of its members, but these differences do not usually impact on PCC discussions relating to organisational questions. She added that if the PCC was presently concealing its differences in the members’ report it could also do so in the minutes - a point echoed by PCC member James Turley.

Another important question was that of resources. Comrade Kamangar, as well as Mike Macnair, Tina Becker and John Bridge, emphasised that the PCC was lacking in the time and resources necessary to produce the “detailed and accurate” minutes demanded - in reality that would entail a full stenographic record, which would have to be checked for accuracy by all PCC members.

Mike Macnair suggested that the PCC minutes in their present form could be circulated, but Peter Manson pointed out that they were a working document for PCC meetings, serving also as an agenda, and could often be rather cryptic. They would not satisfy comrades’ desire for greater detail or political clarity, which, after all, was the purpose of the members’ report.

Former PCC member Tina Becker could see the quandary, understanding first hand the impossibility of producing “detailed” minutes, but nonetheless feeling that, as a non- London based comrade, something had to be done to increase members’ interconnection. Streaming access to or recording of London Communist Forum discussions was broached as an idea by the comrade.

Comrade Harvey and Maciej Zurowski (a signatory to the motion) were both keen to emphasise that their suggestions were not motivated by any suspicion that the PCC was hiding anything, but only in reinforcing our democratic practice. Comrade Harvey understood that the time/resource issue meant that full stenographic minutes were off the table, but disagreed with John Bridge and others that “detailed and accurate” should be deleted. He also stated that it would not be sufficient to simply circulate the existing minutes and agreed with Andy Hannah that the members’ report should be required to point out any differences amongst PCC comrades.

Sarah McDonald also liked the idea of recording LCF debates, and agreed with John Bridge on his point that most of the political differences that existed on the PCC were already in the open via the Weekly Worker, sessions at Communist University and party aggregates, and that part of a member’s duty involves putting in the effort to keep up with such information rather than being spoon-fed it.

In his final remarks comrade Harvey was agreeable to deleting the “detailed and accurate” clause and incorporating comrade Andy Hannah’s amendment for a more detailed members’ report. A final amendment was made to delete the requirement to identify redactions to the PCC minutes. These amendments all passed overwhelmingly, which means that minutes will be now circulated, along with an improved members’ report. In addition, the PCC will consider recording the discussion at its meetings around the weekly political report and make it available to members.

All comrades seemed happy with the outcome, which provided a practical solution to the problems addressed by comrade Harvey’s motion in a way that would not hamstring the activity of the organisation.

Feminism and neoliberalism

The aggregate’s second session featured a discussion on identity, neoliberalism and the politics of quotas introduced by Farzad Kamangar. This produced an interesting debate, particularly on the question of how the unequal position and inadequate representation of women can be practically addressed.

Comrade Kamangar began by repeating the observation that “identity politics is the hegemony of our time”, something which has moved from the academy to the public sector, and then to a lesser extent to the private sector. What was crucial for the comrade was the interplay between changes in society and the economy since roughly the 1970s, and the incorporation of demands around identity at the level of appearances within capitalism in a way which has allowed it to avoid fundamental change. Identity politics, comrade Kamangar said, arose as a response to second-wave feminism, and its critique of reproduction, domestic labour and women’s rights.

She noted that pre-neoliberal capitalism had created a gendered division of labour based around a nuclear family, where the man worked and the woman performed domestic tasks and raised children. However, the turn in the economy towards finance and neoliberalism saw heavy industry relocating to low-wage economies and an increase in casualisation. Simultaneously there were revolutions in culture, with women gaining a measure of control over reproduction through the contraceptive pill, partly as a result of the intervention of movements for women’s rights. The increase in female employment and the profound cultural changes which were also occurring reshaped the environment in which the nuclear family existed.

Capitalism saw this change as an opportunity, seeking to utilise parts of the politics of liberation to prettify its appearance without having to change its core mechanisms. As a result, many came to believe that the determinant relations in society were not those of class, but various identity categories. The expression of this world view - one ultimately of individuals and their attributes - saw identity politics take over the remnants of second-wave feminism and drive it away from the politics of class struggle which was identified with the existing (‘white, male’) “Keynesian labour aristocracy” of old.

At first intersectionality was designed to combat identity politics by combining the various struggles of oppressed groups, but as it grew into a generalised discourse of grievance and of the idea of autonomous movements of the oppressed, it was unable to fulfil this role. Indeed, the growth of those movements that downplayed the class question developed to the point, in the 1970s and 1980s, where the ‘privileged’ working class and its organisations were being attacked and defeated, precisely at a time when class politics needed strengthening. Needless to say, added comrade Kamangar, the demands of all groups of the oppressed must be taken seriously by any class movement - hardly a new principle.

Through the token inclusion of women or people of colour in high positions, and the imposition of an intensified double burden of work and domestic labour upon women workers, capitalism was able to maintain itself while changing only its superficial appearance. Women are ‘free to work’, but what they need in order to do so - childcare, flexible hours, etc - is withheld. They are then made to feel guilty because, given the illusion of equality, their distress at the double burden can seem a personal failing.

Thus, in the absence of fundamental change, the idea the needs of any oppressed group can be addressed via quotas for executive boards, Blairite all-women short lists, ‘intersectionality’ or whatever is an illusion - if only you could achieve formal representation, then somehow you would have achieved substantive equality.

What adds to this illusion, continued Farzad, is the construction of a bureaucratic ‘equality’ apparatus in workplaces, trade unions and so on which prize the appearance of equality over real, fundamental change, and value a category of identity more than a person’s politics. Much of the left is happy to settle for this formal, bureaucratic approach, as can be seen in its support for gender quotas.