Letters
Here and now
I agree with most of your article, 'Obama's reforms - inadequate and unfair' (August 27). Where I disagree is that you do not fully draw out the consequences of the correct conclusions you set out.
You are right: Marxists defend the NHS against privatisation without failing to point out why it is necessarily deficient. It is state-capitalist and hence necessarily bureaucratic. You are also right to draw the conclusion that in response to this, and the only way these problems could be overcome and the NHS begin to provide a service that really meets the needs of workers rather than bosses, is via the introduction of democracy through control by its workers and patients.
However, you also correctly point out that the capitalist state will never countenance such a thing in any meaningful sense. The obvious conclusion from this, unless we are to limit ourselves simply to propaganda of the 'Only socialism is the answer' sort, is that, whilst we can raise such demands as a means of mobilising workers, we also have to point out that the state will never consent to such control. So, if workers want the kind of control over the health service which will deal with the bureaucratism, marketisation, etc and provide a decent service, then they have to begin to take it into their own ownership, or create another system that is in their ownership - not at some distant date after the revolution, but here and now!
It is worth pointing out - in response to the social democrat twitter - that, despite the fact that the NHS has the appearance of providing for workers' needs, that is not its real intent. Capitalist commodity production also provides for workers' needs, and the necessity for capital to continually expand the range of marketed use-values also has the consequence of raising workers' real standards of living. But that is not what drives capitalism: that is not the purpose of capitalist production. That purpose is the creation of profit. All of the other things are simply consequences of that.
In the same way, the NHS was established by capital to ensure it had a reliable supply of healthy workers - particularly important when workers began to adopt family planning measures, and when the cost of educating and training workers rose - at the least total cost. The fact that this has the consequence of providing a minimum level of healthcare for all is, once again, merely a consequence of that.
As I have set out in my blog, it's time the left began to develop and fight for solutions based on the independent activity of workers rather than simply fighting for reforms in line with the way the bosses' state offers us crumbs from the table.
Arthur Bough
boffyblog.blogspot.com
Pros and cons
John Smithee raised the issue of prostitution and brothels in last week's paper - something which has been debated within the letters pages of the Weekly Worker in the past. He says that Lenin's policy was to target the owners of brothels instead of the prostitutes who work in them.
However, the only reference to Lenin's policy towards brothels and prostitution that I can find is in a series of interviews with Clara Zetkin in 1920. He is quoted as saying: "I was told that a talented woman communist in Hamburg is publishing a paper for prostitutes and that she wants to organise them for the revolutionary fight." He then goes so far as to call prostitution a "dreary trade" - the policy is progressive, but the attitude is not.
The policy of the Bolsheviks after the revolution towards prostitution can be found in the words of Alexandra Kollontai. She said that the correct slogan was formulated at the first All-Russian Congress of Peasant and Working Woman: "A woman of the Soviet labour republic is a free citizen with equal rights, and cannot and must not be the object of buying and selling." The justification for this is given in a speech to the all-Russian conference of heads of the regional women's departments in 1921.
She said: "The workers' collective condemns the prostitute not because she gives her body to many men, but because, like the legal wife who stays at home, she does no useful work for the society."
Kollontai does say that sexual relationships should be brought into line with the workers' collective, but does not speculate on the form the family will take as a result. In fact, this is as far as it goes, as she does not fully grasp the significance of prostitution or what it means in a post-revolutionary society, where the world is to be turned upside down.
For, if the nuclear family disappears, what is it replaced with? It would be replaced with something like a brothel. A cooperative owned and run by the workers: that is, the prostitutes. The pimps would be replaced by the brothers of the prostitutes, and they would be gatekeepers or doormen, providing security and preventing exploitation.
Furthermore, when the woman is pregnant, this is the time when she most needs to be earning money. However, in capitalist society she is prevented from gaining any cooperative support because of the illegality of brothels. A fellow comrade prostitute would be able to continue working and bringing in money while the non-working prostitute would be providing child support. Is this not work? Alexandra Kollontai appears not to have grasped, going on the speech that she gave in 1921, that childcare is the most important job in society.
Prostitution can now be seen not as a result of the decline of capitalism or of poor economic circumstances, but as a way to resolve them. I would say that as a start brothels should be legalised: this is the way to ensure that women can work together in a safe environment, rather than the dangerous and the illegal environment involving pimps and underage prostitutes who fear for their lives.
Simon Wells
East London
Repression
The Partisan Defence Committee is to be congratulated on their exposure of the government's widespread sexual repression, centred on young people and their sexual choices.
A combination of tabloid sensationalism, the infiltration of social services and child protection agencies by religious nut cases, and the religious fundamentalism of Blair, Brown and many cabinet members is responsible. It has driven the legal and social services agenda quite literally mad.
The case the PDC cites is one of the more tragic, but there are hundreds of these every week. A fortnight ago, a Lincolnshire man was jailed for encouraging 'underage' girls to send naked photos of themselves to him via their mobiles. They did this alone, in their own bedrooms, miles away from the man, without the slightest coercion or threat - i.e. with complete consent. The man got 12 years - a sentence normally given to violent rapists, attempted murderers and criminals committing manslaughter.
The government demands that no distinction whatsoever is made between consent and coercion in order to reinforce their insistence that legally underage people cannot consent - even when it's patently clear that they have.
Malcolm Stace
email
Technicalities
I read Peter Manson's report on the CPGB's annual Communist University ('Most successful school yet', August 27) and I was also able to read some very positive commentaries from several attendees. I believe Lars T Lih's intervention must have left a wonderful impression on many who attended the school. The Kautsky debate is indeed worth much attention.
But Peter also mentioned "the 'fringe' meeting on the role of the Weekly Worker and how we should approach the duty to write for it". I suspect the meeting was not a bad one, since Peter thought it worth mentioning it in his article. But was it recorded or was it considered too 'technical'? I think it would be useful to publish a report covering that discussion.
Thomas Keirse
email
Naive soul
I may be a "naive soul" but the points I made in Socialist Worker about left unity are more than valid ('More than a temporary electoral alliance needed', July 16).
I claimed in SW that until we worked out why alliances for left unity always seemed to fall apart, attempting a new alliance might be a waste of time. I cited the Socialist Alliance, Respect (both of them!) and the Scottish Socialist Party as examples of how progressive alliances had splintered or declined. I just wanted to know why.
I've also pointed out previously in the Weekly Worker that voting Labour might be the best option until the reasons for the previous failures of left unity were discovered. I stand by that.
Graeme Kemp
Shropshire
Factoids
Henry Mitchell declares that Israel has the right of self-determination because ... Israelis have the same right to their own state as we do.
After this circular reasoning, Mr Mitchell falls back on the same kind of historical factoids that his opponents use: in the time of the Romans ... the Ottomans ... the caliphate ... the mandate. But does Iran really want a reconstituted Ottoman empire? Persian Shias never acknowledged the supremacy of the Sunni caliphate.
Even if it were true, it would be entirely irrelevant that "Israel clearly existed for centuries" before the Muslim conquest. For what it's worth, Jerusalem was a city in the (Christian) Byzantine empire; and had been overrun by the (Christian) Sassanids of Persia only 23 years before the Muslims arrived in 637.
To be sure, some Jews were living there. But this fact by itself does not explain the right to Jewish self-determination in Israel.
Jeff Vincent
email
Iran protests
Government officials in Iran are predicting that the year 1388 (March 2009-2010) will be one of major closures and, according to Tehran's Chamber of Commerce, it will be a year of labour protests. Over the last two months, there has already been a rise in the number of workers' actions.
Workers at the Wagon Pars carriage company have been protesting over non-payment of wages in a struggle that has gone on for several months. In late August they went on strike for five days and blockaded the main gate, preventing managers from entering. The company initially threatened to dismiss the remaining contract workers and call in anti-riot forces. However, the workers were not intimidated and did not end their protest.
On August 26, when it became clear the workers were determined to continue their action, Wagon Pars management announced that 250,000 toman (approximately $250) would immediately be paid to each worker. Although unpaid wages add up to between $1,500 and $2,800 each, this was enough to persuade workers, desperate for money, to return to work. However, when they were told that all contract workers were to be sacked, benefits withdrawn and overtime cut, the workers went back on strike.
Wagon Pars was previously one of Iran's giant state-owned companies, but, following privatisation, more than half of its shares were purchased by Iran Khodro (Ikco), the country's main car manufacturer and the largest automobile producer in the Middle East. The new owners took out a $500 million restructuring loan, but, according to the workers, not a penny of it was used at Wagon Pars: it was spent instead on Iran Khodro subsidiary companies, they say.
However, according to the Iranian press, Ikco is on the verge of bankruptcy. In order to meet its financial obligations the company has announced plans to sell its one-third share in Persian Bank, valued at around $500 million. It also plans to auction some 50 unnamed subsidiaries to raise $1 billion and convert $2 billion short-term debt into long-term liabilities. Experts believe that Ikco's operations abroad - it has manufacturing plants in Egypt, Senegal and Syria - are not profitable.
However, Iran Khodro workers are convinced that the problems have been exaggerated to prepare the workforce for major redundancies and cuts in wages.
Many other protests have taken place. For example, workers from Amir Kabir publications staged a demonstration in front of Tehran's Islamic Propaganda Organisation in July, demanding payment of wages owed for over two years, after the company shut down and sacked its 40 staff. Municipal workers in Khoozestan, who had not been paid for five months, gathered in front of the governor's offices in August, while in Isfahan textile workers staged a similar demonstration - this time over six months' non-payment.
Yassamine Mather
Glasgow
Apology
Raw Nerve Books wishes to make an unreserved apology to the human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, and to the LGBT human rights organisation, Outrage, regarding untrue allegations published in the book, Out of place: interrogating silences in queerness/raciality, in 2008.
These untrue allegations appeared in the chapter, 'Gay imperialism: gender and sexuality discourse in the "war on Terror", by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem. We regret that this chapter contains serious, defamatory untruths concerning Peter Tatchell and Outrage. It casts unjustified doubt on their character, motives and integrity, and involves a fundamental misrepresentation of their campaigns.
Contrary to the claims made in the book, Mr Tatchell has never "claimed the role of liberator and expert about Muslim gays and lesbians". He is not Islamophobic and is not "part of the Islamophobia industry". Nor is Outrage. Neither he nor Outrage are racist. They have not engaged in "racial" politics.
Mr Tatchell has never described "Muslims as Nazis" and he has never made the equation "Muslim=Nazi" or "Muslim=evil". He has never "collaborated with the extreme right" and never "participated with several racist and fascist groups".
Several UK LGBT black and Asian groups have worked and/or continue to work with Mr Tatchell and Outrage, including the Black Gay Men's Advisory Group, Black Lesbians and Gays Against Media Homophobia, Gay Uganda (UK), Iraqi LGBT (UK) and the Naz Project.
We accept that Mr Tatchell has never criticised Muslims in general; only Muslim fundamentalists - in the same way that he has also criticised all other forms of religious fundamentalism: Christian, Judaist and so on. In fact, his criticisms and protests against Christian fundamentalism have been far more numerous and robust than those challenging fundamentalist Muslims.
The insinuation that he is anti-Muslim is untrue. He has been in dialogue with Muslim community and faith leaders for many years. He is on record as condemning anti-Muslim prejudice and defending Muslim communities against racist attacks. He has campaigned to support Muslims seeking asylum, Muslims abused in prisons and Muslims falsely accused of terrorism.
We accept that Mr Tatchell has a long history of anti-racism, dating back to the 1970s, including Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. During past and recent elections, he has written and campaigned against the British National Party. For many years, he was targeted for violent attack by the far right because of his anti-racist stance.
At the March for Free Expression in 2006, fascists were not invited. They were told to stay away. Moreover, Mr Tatchell denounced the far right and racists during his speech from the podium.
We accept that Mr Tatchell has campaigned against imperialism for over 40 years. From the 1960s, he has been active in anti-imperialist solidarity campaigns, supporting the national liberation struggles of the peoples of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Oman, Nicaragua, Palestine, Western Sahara, East Timor and West Papua.
Raw Nerve Books very much regrets the unfounded, baseless allegations against Mr Tatchell and Outrage, and invites our readers to visit Mr Tatchell's website (www.petertatchell.net) to judge his record for themselves.
Raw Nerve Books
York
Great stuff
'VI Lenin and the influence of Kautsky' (September 3) was a brilliant article - concise, interesting, well written and really bang on the money. Great stuff!
Sean Brennan
email
