Anarchist Federation (AFed) Scotland: Sexism, Power and the Left***

I?ve always thought the story of John MacLean was inspirational, despite the fact that he 
was never a libertarian communist.* But, a cult was created around him which didn?t so 
much critically draw out the good things he stood for but turned him into something else. 
MacLean became The Great Leader, and an image of the type of working class man who?s 
meant to save us and dies trying. This idea of socialism as a very male, patriarchal, 
top-down movement, embodied in one man, has been repeated so many times it?s farcical. 
---- Of course, I don?t mean to simply equate MacLean or James Connolly, who I have some 
time for, with other such icons as Che Guevara, who was a complete authoritarian, or more 
recent examples like Hugo Chavez, a successful political manager who passed reforms and 
also fought autonomous working class organisation and indigenous communities.

But wherever there?s a tendency to canonize these figures, it reinforces our enthralment 
to the past and its ideas, freezing them rather than moving beyond them, and it raises up 
representatives of real living, messy, anonymous class struggle, all to be conveniently 
used for present day attempts to impose statist, hierarchical solutions for change led by, 
almost always, Great Men.


Start printing the T-shirts: Nicol?s Maduro set to replace Chavez.
Cults like these are a reflection of, and end up propagating both hierarchical forms of 
organisation and patriarchy.

Struggles in the Left

It was a long time in coming but at the anti-Bedroom Tax demonstration in Glasgow an 
important division in the Left in Scotland clearly came out into the open. I?m talking 
about the heckling of Dave Sherry, one of the speakers at the end, by people from 
different political groups or none who all see themselves as feminists or pro-feminists. 
Sherry, as a member not just of the SWP but also that party?s Dispute Committee, was 
directly involved in covering up the rape by a senior party figure of a younger member. 
What happened and its background is explained in full here.

It was absolutely right that Sherry was openly challenged when given a public platform. 
It was also really encouraging that socialists, anarchists and others were united in 
shouting him down. I?m only sorry I missed my chance of heckling him because I was at the 
other side of George Square when it happened. But I?m sure there will be other 
opportunities of opposing SWP speakers in the future.

This wasn?t an isolated incident, however, but part of wider developments where both 
misogyny and hierarchy have been closely linked.


Tommy exploiting the Cult of John MacLean in his own attempt to be the next Great Man.
The old authoritarian Left, after having lost much of its credibility, recognises the 
importance of the anti-Bedroom Tax campaign and has been trying as usual to put itself in 
a position of leadership in order to control it and regain political influence and power. 
Tommy Sheridan, out of prison for perjury, is back in the media spotlight as the face of 
the anti-Bedroom Tax campaign and, after everything he?s done, still manages to muster 
enthusiastic support from his fan club. He briefly got himself elected secretary of the 
interim committee of the West of Scotland Anti-Bedroom Tax Federation, before being forced 
to resign because of his divisive role. But don?t count him out just yet.

Sherry was allowed to speak because those involved in the SWP, Solidarity party, and CWI 
Scotland engineered it, and they quickly closed ranks in defending him and his actions 
from the hecklers. Likewise, Tommy Sheridan, Great Leader of Solidarity, is supported in 
turn by the SWP and the CWI and they are all keen to give him a prominent place in public 
talks and the media.

These parties are parasites on already-existing struggles, and it?s no coincidence that 
they have all been actively involved in giving a place to misogyny in some form or another.

The problem that won?t go away

I agree with many of the points Mhairi McAlpine made in her article on the constant 
re-occurrence of sexism and sexual abuse in socialist organisations from Gerry Healy to 
George Galloway. Why does it keep happening? We live in a patriarchal society where 
misogyny is prevalent, men who gain influence in a party are able to manipulate lovers for 
their own ends and then marginalise and intimidate them, all men benefit from patriarchy 
and defend those, often in a position of power, who are called out.

But I think that we should also explore the structure of these organisations: the fact 
that they were all hierarchical parties.

Tommy Sheridan is in the position he is, as a socialist celebrity, because he was given 
power. From his days in Militant he was made the figurehead and spokesman of the 
anti-Poll Tax campaign ? apparently speaking on behalf of all the grassroots groups who 
fought the Poll Tax, whether they liked it or not ? and then in the SSP was at the centre 
of the party?s electoral strategy. He was good in the media, he got votes and was 
encouraged to get as much publicity as he could. In other words, he was undoubtedly given 
a status and influence above ordinary members. There were and are a lot of good comrades 
in the SSP, but the criticisms people are making about Tommy now were already around long 
before the party was split over his scandal and lying. Those women and men who opposed 
him afterwards were absolutely in the right, but now that he?s trying to make a comeback 
maybe it?s time to look again at the context of his rise to influence.

Is it really surprising that manipulative, egoistic men are most successful in power politics?

Whether it?s in electoralism or controlling a small top-down party like the SWP, men not 
only find their way to the top and stay there but patriarchy shapes the operation of power 
and influence, just as it does in wider society. Sure, there are prominent female leaders 
too, but they often end up doing just as much to defend male leaders, as happened in the 
SWP or with Solidarity.

What?s the answer? I?d obviously disagree with those who argue that the aim should be 
another electoral, hierarchical party that replaces misogynist male leaders with 
pro-feminist leaders.

Patriarchy is one form of power over others, of hierarchy. We want to get rid of it 
altogether just like we want to get rid of ableism, white supremacy, heteronormativity and 
capitalism itself.** As anarchists we?d see this as being interconnected and that the 
organisations we build and the struggles we?re involved in need to be concerned with all 
these things. Those most directly affected by an oppression, should be the ones to lead 
the struggle against it, and organise separately whenever they see fit, but those not 
directly oppressed should be just as much concerned with, for example, pro-feminism and 
educating themselves about it, and not just leave (pro-)feminism to self-identifying women.

In all cases, though, we shouldn?t pass on responsibility for challenging oppressions or 
exploitation to representatives to do it on our behalf but through structures that we 
ourselves build and control. It?s entirely self-defeating to fight against people having 
power over us through means that contribute to people having power over us!

The Occupy movement might be pointed out as an example of how non-hierarchical organising 
doesn?t necessarily lead to pro-feminist spaces. It?s debatable to what extent Occupy was 
actually non-hierarchical, since it was started and maintained by a small number of 
activists who had the time and were able to live out in camps in the city centre, and who 
would tend to have control. AFed members that I?m aware of were never involved in Occupy 
in Scotland because of the many problems we saw with it, from its unclear demands and 
means to bring them about, to being dominated by liberal not anti-capitalist ideas as well 
as a toxic mixture of conspiracy theories. At the very least, though, Occupy was an 
attempt at non-hierarchical or grassroots organising that led to the creation of 
incredibly unsafe spaces where sexual abuse was widely reported both in the US and here in 
Britain. The nature of Occupy camps meant they were likely to be places where people were 
at risk anyway, but importantly the movement had no concern for adopting clear safer 
spaces policies and pro-feminism was conspicuous by its absence.

I don?t think there?s an easy solution to genuinely challenge something like patriarchy 
but I would definitely argue that it requires non-hierarchical modes of organising ? by 
which I don?t mean ?jazz hands? and endless hours of consensus, but decision-making that?s 
directly democratic and effective ? along with safer spaces policies, those directly 
affected having their own spaces and platforms, and a clearly pro-feminist stance adopted 
by everyone. The structures we need don?t come ready-made but are developed through 
experimentation.

But, to be clear, sexism and misogyny is something that affects all organisations even 
those that actively try to challenge it and have structures that aim to ensure that 
control isn?t given to a minority. It?s something we have to constantly try to deal with 
and that we all need to get better at.

Lastly, I wanted to point out a new Scottish feminist and queer blog, A Thousand Flowers, 
and I think it?s awesome. I might not agree with absolutely every point or article but 
it?s an interesting and vibrant site and the fact that it exists is really positive for 
anyone in the pro-feminist, non-authoritarian Left today.

*Check out Nan Milton?s biography which gives an excellent insight into radical Scottish 
history. Anarchist Guy Aldred, who worked with MacLean, was also one of the first people 
to write about him. My argument isn?t that we should stop commemorating figures like 
MacLean, but to be highly critical of how he is used and to what ends in the present. I 
would say the exact same about libertarian communist figures like Emma Goldman, Durruti 
and so on. In many other cases, though, I think icons of the past or present need to be 
ditched altogether.

** There?s an excellent introduction to privilege theory and intersectionality written by 
AFed?s Women Caucus: A Class Struggle Anarchist Analysis of Privilege Theory.
===========================================
*** Trigger warning: general discussion of rape and sexual abuse in socialist 
organisations. | Written in a personal capacity.
Links at http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/sexism-power-and-the-left/