Hello. Someone demanded I write up my experience of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, a local (to me) event primarily organised by Counterfire, bete noir of much of the left because of their scandalous association with the archest Reesite of them all, John Rees.
It was very good.
Friendly, open, well organised and on a lovely sunny day which made hanging round in Cromer Street, etc. very pleasant – although I accept this was not a product of superior dialectical thinking on the part of the organisers. The Festival took place across the way from me in various venues, a church, and a park and cafe. The spread-out location created a very nice atmosphere both in the sessions and the post-session chats. Throughout the day I found myself in a near constant pool of really lovely people, which is alright isn’t it?
I was struck by how often random people came up to me and just started chatting – about the session they’d just been in, politics in general or whatever. When attending certain other events there had been a constant and irritating set of pushy “recruiters” demanding you join the party/organisation. The absence of this (pretty pointless) hard sell routine allowed space for actual conversations and, I suppose, relationship building. Long term this is a really effective, and disarming, technique – if it was a technique at all rather than just people being human beings to each other.
Dilemma
You will be aware that, after Woolwich, there has been a significant and worrying backlash against the immigrant and muslim communities. On day two of the event there were scheduled a number of far-right marches and, of course, counter mobilisations.
This created a genuine dilemma for many attendees who could feel that this Saturday in particular was important but who also did not want the pace and events of the left dictated by responding to the far-right. Certainly people who never wanted the festival to happen anyway demanded it be called off to demonstrate against the fascists in various bits of London, even though the more significant demonstrations were actually taking place in the sticks.
What threatened to be a beer hall putsch now resembles more like a damp squib (not least in thanks to the family of the murdered Woolwich soldier and Help for Heroes who made clear, public statements denouncing anyone attempting to use this tragic death to create race hate). We can discuss this further if you like but for me a movement needs to be able to do more than one thing at once, and we don’t drop well organised events about our vision for a better world to rut about on relatively small demos that many people will have forgotten this time next month.
If I’d skipped the festival to go on anything, it would have been the badger demo anyway, but I’m glad I didn’t.
What was it like?
I went to five sessions and can only speak to them. They were all good and had a fresher, more natural flavour than many left events I’ve attended in the past. They were; Terry Eagleton on how Terry Eagleton is an amusing speaker, a round table on why the left is rubbish, why socialists are allowed to like sport (which they deliberately scheduled at the same time Chris Bambery was elsewhere so he couldn’t spoil it), why we can’t ignore the central importance of immigration to political debate, and a political WALK.
Nay sayers will say revolutionaries would have run.
It was the first time I’d heard Eagleton speak and like many quietly charismatic leftists he simply strung together a series of amusing thoughts and called it a meeting. Brilliant. I particularly liked the way he reminded us that the living Marx was opposed to the state rather than an advocate of some sort of benign authoritarianism or hyper-Keynesian. I don’t know what the hardened hacks will have made of him equating socialism with love, but this hardened hack put up with it for the jokes.
I may speak another time about some of the other sessions but I want to give some space to the debate about the left (kicked off by Chris Nineham, China Mieville and Laurie Penny). There was a defensive tone at the start with the chair and speakers saying that they hoped debate would be respectful and that we’d listen to each other. It hadn’t even occurred to me that we wouldn’t. In hindsight this was partly prompted by the leaflet put out by the IS Network which, due to its oddly hostile tone at an event they’d been invited to speak at, created a needless tension, transforming expectations of an interesting discussion into something a bit more set piece between formal positions – which is odd for a group that actually has few set positions.
The leaflet was a mistake, even if you think its criticisms were right. There are always a thousand true things that can be said at any one time, but not all of them will be wise or helpful. The tone of the leaflet was a focus on the perceived deficiencies of Counterfire rather than something that might have been useful – like some thoughts on where go from here. It was a little like going to a party and handing your host a letter saying that no matter how well the night goes, he is still a twat. I think the IS Network are better than that.
Anyway…
Neither Chris nor China said much of any interest in their opening remarks (although China was, as usual, funny and articulate and both gents significantly upped their game for their closing thoughts) and only Laurie actually said anything substantive. Not that I agreed with her, but at least she said something and was careful to frame the SWP rape crisis as the “SWP rape crisis” rather than dancing round the subject. Her main point, which was echoed by some speakers from the floor, was that we have to talk about feelings, recognise how painful splits and rows can be and validate them.
That’s all very well, but actually the vast majority of people on the left aren’t ringing each other up in tears or are even a little bit upset by the SWP rape crisis because they haven’t even heard of the SWP, or if they have don’t give it much thought. In general we should treat each other better (a point that oddly wasn’t made although I’m sure Laurie would agree) and for those who are going through the mill I hope they are ok. I’m “happy” to give you a hug if you need one, but I hope it’s ok to say it’s not what I’m here for either.
It was Lindsey German’s response to that theme that seemed right to me. The movement “is not about you”. The left, or any political current, does not exist in order to exist, but to effect change. It is not a therapy session, friendship group or a philosophical circle. If you have need of these things I hope you have them, but that’s not politics.
I’d rather go to an interesting meeting than a boring one. I’d rather do an activity that is fun rather than dull or scary. But sometimes things are boring or scary. As grown ups we take it on the chin. I want everyone to be ok, but not for one moment do I think the left has to be about the (small number of) people who are in tears. In fact, between sobs perhaps, we need to build the confidence and joy of our various communities to win what we can.
That does not mean I agree with SWP CC member Amy Leather who made a heavy handed contribution about how we shouldn’t discuss the left, we should be smashing the bedroom tax. The discussion she didn’t want us to have was actually specifically about her behaviour and her party’s vile treatment of a young woman who had come forwards with allegations of rape. Her downplaying of the SWP rape crisis as a problem of not enough bedroom tax leafleting was bound to get people angry and I admire the restraint of people like Tom Walker who was, coincidentally, called next and had to cope with unexpected hard emotions while also trying to make a cogent point to a room full of people. He handled it admirably.
Lesley, from Islington’s Left unity group, was very strong I thought on how we have to address the racism and sexism that occurs within our ranks. That we cannot ignore problems when they arise or, as the SWP did, put our organisations before our politics and principles – because step by step we’d create organisations that are not worth a damn. I think this was the useful flip side to Lindsey’s “not about you point” that we have to ensure our organisations are fit for purpose and are putting their money where their mouth is. We need both because they are, in fact, the same thing seen from different angles.