Demands to win youth

As part of the ongoing reappraisal of the Draft programme of the CPGB, the January 20 London Communist Forum discussed the section under ‘Immediate demands’ dealing with youth. The current wording can be found at www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_demands.html#3_11.

Comrade Peter Manson introduced the section, pointing out what he saw as some clumsiness in the arrangement of the first two paragraphs. In particular, he suggested prioritising elements of the second paragraph - in particular the fact that youth are not only “exploited as cheap labour”, but “blamed for social decay” - rather than beginning with the fact that most young workers are not union members. After all, he said, the majority of youth are not workers.

Following discussion, comrade Manson withdrew a suggestion that anti-social behaviour orders should be specifically mentioned - while everyone accepted the pernicious nature of asbos, the communist programme should deal with questions of principle and strategy, not go into the detail of current official policy, which rapidly becomes outdated. Comrade Manson stressed our demand for full adult rights from 16, although he pointed out that this age is to a certain extent arbitrary - for example, many of the students who walked out of school in protest against the war in 2003 had been under 16. Those adult rights should include democratic control, along with staff and other workers, over school life - he noted that at present the phrase “under the  control of elected representatives of youth” refers only to sports and cultural centres.

Most comrades in discussion were not so bothered about rearrangement of the first two paragraphs. Phil Kent thought that many of youth’s problems came from outside: while the government likes to encourage youth to get involved in ‘wholesome activities’, it closes playing fields and youth clubs: rank hypocrisy. He considered there should be little worry at the trend in society for sex to be started earlier; it was more a problem of parental perceptions and fears. Phil thought there were lessons to be learnt in the methodology adopted in the teaching at Montefiore schools, where students could largely ‘do as they like’.

Young people often end up doing unappealing work, according to comrade Jim Moody, exemplified by burger-flipping ‘McJobs’. He reiterated the point about young people having few places to gather, which is why they could be found under bridges, etc. He pointed out some ambiguity in the current formulation dealing with compulsory education. This could suggest we supported the extension to 18, which of course we do not. Jim welcomed the current demand for “No religious schools, no private schools”, but recalled that some comrades had advocated a more nuanced attitude to religious schools: he thought their approach veered towards encroaching on the rights of children and young people.

Worried that the whole section was too negative, comrade Stan Keable also thought there might be too much detail, as in the demand for compulsory education. And what kind of rights should there be for ‘adult youth’, which is what we are talking about when we discuss rights for those 16 and over? He wondered if the reference to education “of a polytechnical nature” might be misinterpreted as meaning schooling as preparation for work. On religious education, comrade Keable thought this was a tactical question, not necessarily for “day one” of our programme’s application.

Comrade Mark Fischer underlined that we were discussing what should happen inside the state system, not where parents sent their children at weekends. And, yes, this section’s demands are for “day one”, though of course the argument for any of them would have to have been won by then. Comrade Fischer was one of several comrades who defended the fact that ‘youth’ has its own specific section in our programme, which should not be mixed up with issues specific to children.

Comrade John Bridge emphasised that the section addressed youth as potential revolutionary actors, and should therefore be separate from demands relating to children. Rights are complemented by responsibilities and this could hardly apply to children. Thus, our argument is that you start to have adult rights and responsibilities from 16. He took issue with comrade Manson’s argument that the call for students from the age of 16 to experience education “within a fully democratic system” should be made more specific by a phrase such as “under workers’ and students’ democratic control”. Comrade Bridge said that ‘control’ and ‘democracy’ are equally vague unless given meaning by their context.

There was consensus over the need to reject government proposals to increase the school leaving age - adult rights at 16 must include the right to leave school. Perhaps the addition of the word ‘only’ to the phrase “compulsory education up until the age of 16” was called for.