Letters
Consent confusion
About Eddie Ford’s article ‘Intrusive and authoritarian’ (September 10), I think there is indeed a problem when the state seeks to control what its workers do or stop doing outside of the workplace.
In that I agree: ‘codes of conduct’ that emphasise moral questions outside of the boundaries of the workplace are an authoritarian encroachment on the fundamental freedom of anyone. It is, perhaps, a new form of serfdom, and a draconian extension of the work hours to encompass all of the worker’s life. Against this, we must all stand together with the NASUWT union and oppose all these measures of control, intended to super-exploit teachers as workers, and to gain political points with the self-righteous ‘guardians of morality’.
However, I take issue when this - for socialists and communists at least -uncontroversial call is used as a basis to expand into an equally self-righteous tirade against ‘age of consent’ laws, anti-paedophilia panics and teacher-student relationships.
Sex should be free and equal, but ‘age of consent’ is a much different issue than the right to have a workplace or school free of sexual pressure on the part of people in power and from the worker’s right to a self-guided life outside of work. By mixing the three issues in what amounts to a cultural (rather than a political) critique, both arguments are undermined and in fact, by making both issues equal and interrelated, we play directly into the hands of the ‘guardians of morality’. This is a political mistake that objectively undermines the righteous fight of the NASUWT. You cannot win workplace reforms by arguing for deep social revolution. It’s like trying to kill a fly with a very large, very heavy hammer.
But as a cultural critique itself, it ignores - in a rather authoritarian and patriarchal fashion - the realities of people-as-people to make a questionable theoretical point: very few teacher-student relationships are not based on power as the basis of the relationship, regardless of age. Usually, but not always, this means power of male teachers over female students. This is a statistically verifiable fact, and is true across all places where the matter has been studied in depth. The heavy gendering of these types of relationships speaks of this being a traditional gender oppression situation: it is not about free and equal sex, but about men feeling they can sexually possess anything they want. Students and workers should not have to endure such an environment.
Of course, it will be argued that such is not the case with Helen Goddard, as the relationship was between two women. That ignores the overriding point of teacher-student relationships, not as they could be but as they are: relationships of power. It might be true that some relationships that cross age of consent, in particular (as in this case) with such a small age difference (they are part of the same generation, with conceivably more in common than just their teacher-student relationship) might be formed on mutual attraction and lust. But these are extreme examples, if existing at all: in truth, legal protections should exist for students - not just from the rare pathological predator, but also from the far more common phenomena of irresponsibility and power-hunger.
Basically, there cannot be a free and equal sexual relationship if there exists a non-free and unequal non-sexual relationship: students in school are not there because they want to have sex with teachers, and teachers are not there to have sex with students. Ideally, students are there to receive an education on the part of the teacher. Or, if one is cynical, the students want a good grade and it is the teacher who gives it. An unequal relationship if there is any: the teacher processes what the student doesn’t have but the student wants. This creates a fertile ground for abuse, harassment and exploitation - particularly in view of how our society treats children in general.
Again, this might or might not be the case in Helen Goddard’s relationship with a student, but that is irrelevant: she betrayed the greater collective responsibility of providing a safe environment built on the assumptions of a lack of sexual harassment and abuse, in order to fulfil her lesser individual responsibility to her sexual gratification. Faced with an enticing student, she should have steered away from her, as thousands, if not millions, of teachers do every day.
Furthermore, in a homophobic society, instead of providing a nurturing and safe environment as a fellow lesbian (or bisexual?) to help her student sort out her emotions as to her sexuality, she has provided additional shame and confusion to a teenager - a condition that is already full of shame and confusion over everything. That harm was done is verifiable - even if the sex itself was consensual and enjoyable from the perspective of the student. Harm to our collective trust and harm to the individual student’s education and growth.
Then there is the ‘age of consent’. This is a matter with many layers of meaning, some of which cannot be explored in a single letter. However, it should be understood that the entire scientific consensus says that adult and child sexuality are very different and incompatible - transculturally - and that teenagers engage in a transition between the two. This transition varies greatly; hence a given age will always be an arbitrary measure. However, the consensus advises that indeed there is a difference between predatory behaviour (ie, people who abuse children because it’s easy, not because they are children), pathological behaviour (ie, people who have mental health issues that affect their perception of age differences), and people who have - for whatever reason - a sexual attraction to younger people.
Certainly, draconian ‘age of consent’ laws that ignore context in lieu of arbitrary ages set by ‘morality’ are wrong. However, ‘age of consent’ laws, like other laws around sexual consent, are necessary in a society were sex goes hand-in-hand with power. Otherwise, it is an exercise of oppression: of imposing upon children the sexual needs of adults, regardless of their opinion. It is bad enough that women and twinks worldwide have to put up with the catcalls and unwanted advances of every man who feels entitled to them; and now we will add children to the ‘fuckable’ list.
It is particularly interesting that it is adults, and only adults, who engage in this debate: in claiming to be a voice for children, they actually deny a voice to children. Let’s first advocate for real expansion of children’s rights, such as voting, the right to divorce parents, the right to work ... wait? What? Oh, so they are old enough to fuck, but not old enough to be wage-slaves? How convenient.
Lastly, and almost as a footnote, upholding the Spartacist line is laughable: this political cult’s defence is, in actuality, a defence of men’s power to fuck anything in sight. Sufficient to say, they support an organisation (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) whose sole goal is to legalise the prurient fetish of its members, children be damned. Not to mention that this historic defence has much more to do with the sexual preferences of certain leading or formerly leading cadre and financiers than with any real political basis. Like all of their politics, I should say.
Surely, a new world where children are more respected as individuals is needed, but one should not confuse this aspiration with a defence of the indefensible: adults who have sex with children, and teachers who have sex with students, are not the seed from which a new society is built: they are power figures who oppress using sex - which should be free and equal - as their tool. Their selfish and self-centred actions, rather than advancing the cause of a free and equal sexuality, provide for its continued intermingling with power and inequality. They are the mirror image and, more often than not, the same as those ‘guardians of morality’ we so despise.
SKS
New York
No place
Simon Wells advocates the legalisation of brothels under capitalism and the establishment of state-run brothels under communism (Letters, September 10).
He falls into the trap set by bourgeois politicians who accuse communists of wanting to turn women into ‘community wives’, conveniently forgetting that such women exist under capitalism in the form of prostitutes. Marx famously pointed out that capitalism would turn air into a commodity if a way could be found to bottle it. In a similar way, capitalism has commodified or monetised sex and relationships.
The decline of capitalism has led to an increase in the number of women turning to prostitution, along with an increase in the demand for the services of prostitutes from men. Whilst accurate statistics are hard to calculate, the Office for National Statistics surveys suggest that there are 100,000 prostitutes in the UK, which equates to one prostitute for every 300 men. At the same time, surveys suggest that one in 25 men visit prostitutes. More women are turning to prostitution, which pays around £100 an hour compared to the £6 an hour that female checkout staff earn at Tesco.
Under communism there would be an abundance of wealth. At the same time, through the use of the most advanced technology, the working week would be reduced to 10 hours or less. For the first time since primitive communism, human beings would have the time to not only take part in the running of society but be able to develop truly fulfilling, loving relationships.
John Smithee
Cambridgeshire
Prejudice
I disagree with Jim Moody’s dismissal of geoengineering as a solution to climate change (‘Geoengineered for growth’, September 10). Moody’s motivation is actually an anti-Marxist pessimism that dismisses human solutions to man-made problems. Hence he writes: “What we know is that human experimentation on the planet’s ecology and weather system is very likely to backfire.” How do we know this? Surely this is just pure, unmitigated prejudice against human endeavour.
An alternative view, which might be called technological cornucopianism, was held by Leon Trotsky. In his Literature and revolution (1924), Trotsky says: “The present distribution of mountains and rivers, of fields, of meadows, of steppes, of forests and of seashores, cannot be considered final. Man has already made changes in the map of nature that are not few or insignificant. But they are mere pupils’ practice in comparison with what is coming. Faith merely promises to move mountains; but technology, which takes nothing ‘on faith’, is actually able to cut down mountains and move them. Up to now this was done for industrial purposes (mines) or for railways (tunnels); in the future this will be done on an immeasurably larger scale, according to a general industrial and artistic plan. Man will occupy himself with reregistering mountains and rivers, and will earnestly and repeatedly make improvements in nature. In the end, he will have rebuilt the earth, if not in his own image, at least according to his own taste.”
Climate change wasn’t thought of as a problem in Trotsky’s day, but the spirit expressed here tells us that if Trotsky were alive today he’d be pro-geoengineering. Anything’s better than the campaign to reduce carbon emissions and cut our CO2 footprint, which won’t lead to social change - only to a demoralised and impoverished humanity.
Barry Curtis
Chelmsford
No surprise
In connection with ‘Lenin, Kautsky and 1914’ (September 10), the Socialist Party of Great Britain saw itself as part of the general anti-revisionist, intransigently Marxist trend within the international social democratic movement. The SPGB was influenced by the German Social Democratic Party and Karl Kautsky (three of the SPGB’s first four pamphlets were translations of parts of Kautsky’s Erfurt programme), but also by the French ‘Guesdists’.
The SPGB, after attending the 1904 Second International Amsterdam congress as an affiliated organisation, did not renew its affiliation and by 1910 had completely written off the Second International as of any use to the cause of socialism. So August 1914 came as no surprise to it, as it did to Lenin.
To quote the SPGB in 1907: “... today we have a so-called international socialist movement embracing organisations and individuals that are beyond a doubt purely bourgeois-radical in composition and action ... They may immediately before and after each congress repudiate or grossly violate the principles of the class struggle ... but so long as they pretend to be in accord with the class-war attitude, they are heartily welcome at these triennial gatherings ... and the truth forces itself upon us that the International Socialist Congress is, as far as the majority is concerned, socialist in name only.”
Alan Johnstone
email
Safety valve
Not for the first time, current trends in many traditional left groups focus on ‘anti-fascist’ activities, directed at British National Party meetings or marches, the aim being to ‘deny fascists the right to speak’ a reaction to the several fascist candidates elected by a naive public, failing to understand the danger of Nick Griffin’s philosophy. The solution suggested is to ‘clear the Nazis from the streets’.
‘Revolutionaries’ advocating these activities have a very superficial view of society and of the working class. They show contempt for the working class they claim to represent. As a libertarian socialist with the long-term objective of a stateless and classless society, where for the first time in world history each and every citizen will decide for themselves how they will live and actively participate in the management of their social world, I am convinced such a free society must be consciously created by the entire population admittedly, a tall order, given there is no ‘blueprint’ as to how this new world order will come about.
It is impossible to learn swimming without getting into the water; it is absurd to imagine the population to an individual can learn to manage their own lives in the abstract. We must proceed to build the new society here and now. The battle for the free society is necessarily an aspect of that future society. Decision-making will be its very ABC; it is this right our trendy revolutionary hopes to deny us. The basic assumption behind the banning of a fascist speaker is that ordinary people are so stupid, so unintelligent, so gullible, that a few words from Nick Griffin or one of his henchmen will suffice to convert them to racism and fascism. What contempt for the very masses these same trendies claim to believe will bring about the new proletarian order!
Are the arguments for racism really so dangerous, so contagious, so convincing? Given free expression, would fascism really win the battle for the human mind? Are the arguments for a libertarian society so unconvincing? If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’, our hopes for the socialist future are best forgotten, because, while people, given all the facts to make a rational judgement, choose an authoritarian solution, there will be no progress towards the classless society.
Street battles of the kind referred to can be very popular with many engaged in traditional left politics. A sunny day may ensure a good turnout. Politics becomes simplified and much more adventurous; rather than sitting on hard seats exploring complicated political theories, the battle is redefined in terms of winning control of a city’s empty streets (some of the biggest demos take place in London’s deserted at weekend localities!).
These street encounters take the form of a military manoeuvre and it’s all good fun. Whatever the outcome, politics doesn’t come into it. But it’s better than sitting at home waiting for the revolution. Activities made to order for the impatient, youthful revolutionary in a society where real revolution appears very distant. For those would-be politicians of either left or right who see politics as no more than a fight between the conflicting ideologies waged by a variety of leaders/vanguards, political action becomes a gang warfare game.
This is not necessarily to belittle participants; their enthusiasms are really a measure of the frustrations of everyday life, where at work, study or leisure, people are ‘objectified’, becoming cogs in the giant, all-embracing capitalist society, moving at very slow pace and where, for the thinking revolutionary, the expected social upheaval seems a long way distant. There is an understandable desire to do something now!
By hypothesising fascism as a form of class rule, fundamentally different from ‘normal’ laissez-faire capitalism (which, of course, it isn’t), the task becomes simplified denying ‘the masses out there’ a voice, because it’s being resolved by the politicos, on the streets, is imagined to be a step towards the real revolution. Hence the popularity of the broad anti-fascist fronts that have been about for almost a century every one of them proving to be a failure.
Far from advancing revolutionary consciousness, the anti-fascist demo is no more than a safety valve of those pent-up frustrations found in the ranks of those ‘vanguard’ bodies, lacking an understanding of the true nature of socialism and how it will be constructed.
Bob Potter
email
Contradiction
What is the principal contradiction in Afghanistan - that between the Afghan people and US occupiers? What then about the barbaric Taliban reactionaries, who want to turn the country back to the dark ages? The Taliban are never for a united front comprising democratic-minded forces.
If the freedom-loving, progressive forces started an armed struggle against foreign troops, they would also target the Taliban. In my opinion the progressive forces cannot help but fight on two fronts. Obviously, this goes against Mao’s teachings, but it seems that there is no other alternative. To forge a unity with the Taliban would be a suicidal act for the progressive forces. Even if they raise solely anti-US slogans and avoid saying anything against the Taliban, the fundamentalist enemy would never spare them and so a decision to fight on one front would remain on paper only.
On the other hand, suppose that Afghan progressive forces accept the policy of fighting on two fronts, how would they be able to explain the correctness of it from the philosophical point of view? Can it be said that the successful experience of Chinese communists in this regard is a unique example that could not be applied in every situation?
Din Mohad
email
Hit first
As comrades and friends of the left will be acutely aware, the present crisis has sent the British government into the red by £1.63 trillion: the equivalent of 12 annual NHS budgets, or of funding the armed forces for 24 years. That’s a significant bit of dosh. And with the revelations that the government plans to buy back even more gilts as a confidence trick to international money markets, it looks set to rise much further still.
This stuff has to be paid for, and we can bet that current plans from any of the bourgeois parties will not include taxing the rich, capital controls or ditching the British state’s overweening reliance on the finance sector. So massive cuts are on the horizon - 10%-12% (at least 13% in real terms) is due to be cut from the public purse every year for five years from 2011. That’s a government commitment, and the Tories think this is not enough.
So on the left we face two very particular challenges. The first is to recognise the problem: in just over five years we face the complete destruction of the welfare state; a settlement that took decades of struggle to force from the ruling class. The second is, given the stakes, what we can do to improve our chances of not getting completely shafted as a class.
I think we need a two-pronged approach.
Firstly, as a materialist, I think the power that we can wield as a class is best represented by the institutions we build to reflect our class interests. These institutions are sources of campaigning experience, organised solidarity, finance, training, communication, mobilised bias, economic power and moral support. Clearly, when our institutions are strong and healthy and growing, we stand a better chance of winning the battles and skirmishes over jobs, pay and conditions, service provisions, housing and community health than when our organisations are weak. We need to ensure that our institutions are healthy - particularly at the coal face where social contestations are going to take place: the public sector, social services, housing, health and education.
At present, while we have an increasing break with social partnership represented by the best of the labour movement (as fractured as it is at present), with the PCS, RMT, CWU and so on, we can conclusively say that in terms of community organisation on the ground we have been on the retreat now for many decades. Most towns and cities do not even have a federation of tenants’ and residents’ associations, or other coordinating civic bodies. I know from bitter experience of tenants’ issues and fights against council cuts in Glasgow precisely how weak and out on a limb this leaves most communities when struggles to preserve what we have arise. So we need to have institutions in place in our communities and workplaces that are controlled by us, reflect our interests and fight like tigers in defence of our basic class interests.
Secondly, very often on the left - because we are mostly (rightly) trying to stand by our brothers and sisters in struggle, we find ourselves moving from crisis to crisis, defending against cuts to this, arguing against job losses or closures to that. We can show people we’re there beside them all the way when we do this. And that’s important. But it’s defensive. When we defend, and we stand to lose everything, mostly we will lose something. And we will call that loss a victory. And sometimes it will build our institutions along the way.
But when are we ever offensive? We have Defend Council Housing, Keep Our NHS Public, anti-academies campaigns, hundreds of local anti-cuts campaigns. But these are all about preserving the status quo. We keep fighting for hamburgers. When are we going to fight for steak?
So, comrades, how about it? Why don’t we build some permanent working class organisation, and go right on the attack. Why don’t we keep hitting these bastards again and again and again? Let’s move fast and hit them first.
Nick Durie
email
Prison letter
Recently Pearse Mc Cauley and Kevin Walsh were released from Castlerea prison in Ireland, having served a sentence for the manslaughter of garda Gerry Mc Cabe, who was killed during an armed robbery in Adare, Co Limerick.
Whilst we are happy that the men will be re-united with their families and friends after many years incarcerated, the release serves to highlight the plight of four fellow republicans who are currently serving sentences for a similar offence. Indeed, so far the men have, between them, served over 100 years within these prison walls, with no sign of release on the horizon.
Michael Mc Hugh and Noel Callan were convicted in December 1985 by the special criminal court of the murder of a garda, while Patrick Mc Cann and Colm O Shea were convicted in 1980 of garda murders during an armed robbery. All four were sentenced to death, commuted to 40 years imprisonment.
Subsequently, as the peace process progressed, these men were asked to sign up to the Good Friday agreement in recognition of the fact that their trials and convictions for scheduled offences in a political Diplock-style court qualified them for release. Over 10 years later, having signed up to the terms of the agreement, these four forgotten men languish here in Portlaoise gaol, left to rot by the Irish government.
You have not or will not hear other signatories of the Good Friday agreement (GFA), such as Martin Ferris of Sinn Féin calling for parity of esteem or justice and equality for these four men. You will not see Martin Ferris standing in the Dáil chambers denouncing the continuing detention of these men. An obvious case of seeing nothing, hearing nothing and doing nothing, as Sinn Féin’s quest for an Ireland of equals continues to exclude those not under the Provisional banner.
Michael, Noel, Paddy and Colm are political prisoners and are entitled to release, as outlined in the agreement reached on April 10 1998, in which the Irish and British governments committed themselves to an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or for similar offences in the case of those sentenced elsewhere.
Their continuing incarceration is akin to state victimisation when it is taken into account that four Provisional IRA garda killers have been released under the GFA. It must also be remembered that the ‘Irish government’ had allowed parole to these men prior to their subsequent release.
Michael, Noel, Paddy and Colm have petitioned successive ministers for justice numerous of times over the past 10 years, but merely received acknowledgements. They have also undertaken numerous high court actions, but to no avail. These men are ‘legally’ entitled to their freedom, but successive governments consistently refuse to outline the reasons for their continuing detention. Unless fellow republicans and socialists, who seek justice, fairness and equality, rally around these forgotten men and highlight their continuing incarceration, they will be left to rot in Portlaoise.
We appeal to those within the republican family, irrespective of their party allegiance, to do everything in their power to put pressure on justice minister Dermot Ahern to release these men by raising public awareness of their plight through pickets, protests and leaflets in a united, orchestrated campaign. We are also appealing to all individuals and social/political groups who are committed to the concept of moral, legal, social and political justice to lend their support in seeking to rectify this blatant victimisation of the voiceless.
Neil Myles
Portlaoise gaol
Free Mahir
Mahir Özer, a political refugee from Turkey, was recently arrested for taking part in a solidarity action with Cuba on September 12. The police claimed that Mahir was a wanted man and a ‘criminal’. Two of his comrades from the Revolutionary Communist Group were arrested as they attempted to intervene. Mahir faces persecution and arrest in Turkey as a supporter of the Kurdish national struggle and a communist.
Mahir is a widely liked and well known militant in Manchester. He is a consistent activist in anti-imperialist and working class struggles. After his parents were deported, he continued to fight. On Monday September 14 he was taken to the notorious Colnbrook detention centre just outside London. His comrades are certain that the UK Borders Agency will try and deport him.
You can help by phoning Colnbrook on 020 8607 5200 to demand the comrade’s release. You can also get your union branch or official to send letters of protest to immigration minister Phil Woolas and the home office at 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. There is also a Facebook group called ‘Free Mahir Özer’, which is updated by his RCG comrades to aid the campaign.
Chris Strafford
Manchester
Support Sheida
Sheida Jahanbin, a former member of Students for Freedom and Equality in Iran, is facing deportation from the Netherlands where she resides in exile. Sheida is 27 and was a student of architecture and graphic design at the Azad University of Tehran before she was forced to abandon her studies and flee Iran following her arrest for holding a leftwing meeting. If Sheida is deported, she will face arrest, prison, torture and even death.
We call on our supporters and friends to write to the Dutch consulate and contact where she is being held, calling for her to be granted leave to stay permanently in the Netherlands. Her IND number is 0808-14-1310.
Please send letters and messages of protest to: Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 38 Hyde Park Gate, London SW7 5DP (telephone: 0207 590 3200); and AZC Vught Reutsedijk, 5264PC, Vught (telephone: 0736021731).
Francis McKevitt
email
