Leftnews.org - News and Views From The Left




small leftnews


Creative Commons License

A progressive dialogue: Building a progressive feminist movement in neo-liberal times | rabble.ca

Posted by Graham on October 29th, 2011

–Agreed.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 29th, 2011 um 5:04 pm and is filed under World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to “A progressive dialogue: Building a progressive feminist movement in neo-liberal times | rabble.ca”

  1. alex_c Says:
    October 29th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Let’s see what Lenin had so say about this:
    Lenin on the Womens’ Question
    “Rosa acted and felt as a communist when in an article she championed the cause of the prostitutes who were imprisoned for any transgression of police regulations in carrying on their dreary trade. They are, unfortunately, doubly sacrificed by bourgeois society. First, by its accursed property system, and, secondly, by its accursed moral hypocrisy. That is obvious.”

    The Fifth International Congress Against Prostitution
    “What means of struggle were proposed by the elegant bourgeois delegates to the congress? Mainly two methods—religion and police. They are, it appears, the valid and reliable methods of combating prostitution.”…”We may judge from this the disgusting bourgeois hypocrisy that reigns at these aristocratic-bourgeois congresses. Acrobats in the field of philanthropy and police defenders of this system which makes mockery of poverty and need gather “to struggle against prostitution”, which is supported precisely by the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie….”

    Meghan Murphy (in agreement with the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and Graham) thinks that police repression (not decriminalization) will improve the condition of the sex trade workers. Murphy opines that we need social housing and safety nets–this is entirely true and supportable. But she does not oppose capitalism, only ‘neoliberal’ capitalism. So long as labour-power remains a commodity, poverty (and the reserve army of labour) remain necessary, and sex work will remain a particular use-value of labour-power. Murphy (to Graham’s agreement) joins in the anti-sex, anti-porn hypocrisy, in stride with the right-wing Christian fundamentalist bigots trying to roll back decades of progress in the democratic rights of women and of sexual freedom, and supports police repression against sex trade workers. For if you do not support de-criminalization, then you must think that it should be criminal, which can only mean one thing.

    In contrast, I, in the tradition of Luxemburg and Lenin, defend all workers against political repression by the police. The economic and social liberation of women and all oppressed groups is inextricably linked to the seizure of power by the working class and the abolition of all class distinctions.

  2. Walker Says:
    October 30th, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Alex: I’m confused. I lived in Regina for a while about a decade ago. There’s a lot of 12 year old street walkers running around that city. I don’t know your position on this so please clarify. I’m not interested in what Marx or Lenin or anyone else other than you has to say on the subject. So here is the set-up; it’s 2011, you see a 12 year old get into some guys car to turn a trick – what do you do?

  3. alex_c Says:
    October 30th, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    You are conflating age of consent and police repression of sex trade workers.

    But the problem remains the same–it is poverty and the persistence of the bourgeois nuclear family as the basic unit of social reproduction that creates conditions in which youth are driven into prostitution. Police repression will not eliminate the problem, in fact decriminalization I would expect would be a harm-reduction strategy that would result in the reduction of the child-prostitution side of prostitution. The social democrats see the police as the protectors of society as a whole rather than the repressive apparatus of the bourgeois state that exist to protect private property and therefore the very condition that causes child prostitution. The cops are the means of holding down the workers’ struggle; they are the means of maintaining bourgeois right in distribution (i.e. keeping those in the reserve army, or among the masses that never enter into the labour force, from getting access to the means of subsistence other than through black-market activity).

    Law cannot stand higher than economics. Do you really think that more police repression will be able to abolish prostitution? We can abolish the racist death penalty–that is a policy of the bourgeois state. But we can’t ‘declare away’ what is a social problem originating in the social relations of production without abolishing those social relations. We can wish that child prostitution and poverty could be eliminated under capitalism, but it cannot, objectively. Those of us who are genuine in our desire to see these eliminated have the responsibility to be truthful in our analysis, regardless of how much we may wish that there were an easier road. It is the left wing of capitalist preservation that creates illusions in the capitalist system while turning purple mourning its ravages–they need to be exposed as the frauds and quacks that they are if we are to build a revolutionary leadership.

    What do I (and revolutionists) do today? We remain irreconcilably hostile to capitalism and the bourgeois state. We spend every ounce of our energy in political activity trying earnestly to build a movement directed squarely against capitalism. We engage in united front actions that work to achieve real gains and expose the misleaders. We support the minimal demands for expanded social programs. We put forward transitional demands such as:
    For a reduction in the work week with no loss in pay! (to spread out the work between the employed and the unemployed). For a system of public works! (public housing, etc.) For the expropriation and workers control of large industry!

    I challenge you to reflect–why is it that you “aren’t interested in what Marx, Lenin or anybody else has to say” about it? That isn’t the attitude of any serious student. I would be disdainful of any Biologist that was similarly disinterested in what major contributors to the theory of evolution had to say. It is a damn shame that you are so disinterested in the only relevant perspective–the perspective that seeks to win power as a class to abolish the global system of class exploitation that causes the depraved oppression of the vast majority in the interest of the tiny minority.

    I don’t quote Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky as scripture–I quote them because they had indispensable insights into the same problems we encounter, because they were irreconcilably hostile to the capitalist class. They didn’t maintain illusions in the capacity of capitalism to become a just system–and history has proven them correct! Since they were part of really-existing mass revolutionary workers’ organizations, since they led workers’ revolutions, I think that their ideas are worth taking seriously. And having taken them seriously, I agree with them and seek to study and promote their Marxist analysis against the left wing of capitalist preservation, to continue their struggle. I side with the revolutionary Marxists against the social democrats that are, at bottom, merely the penultimate means of bourgeoisie for counter-revolution. I work to assimilate the lessons of the history of workers’ revolutions, so that future movements don’t repeat the same bloody mistakes.

  4. Walker Says:
    October 30th, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    You evaded the question. I will restate it. You see a 12 year old get into some guys car to turn a trick – what do you do?

  5. alex_c Says:
    October 30th, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    I didn’t answer your hypothetical because it is not a political question. What do you do? Do you intervene directly? Do you call the cops? If you do, does it change the fact that child prostitution will continue to exist, in Canada and around the world? Will that conditions that led to that child being a prostitute change for that child or for the countless others like him or her? The question the article addresses is political–should prostitution be decriminalized? Are sex workers better off when they have to try to hide away from the bourgeois cops, or does that only intensify the dangers that they face? It is a separate question from the age of consent law.

    So there is child prostitution happening as we speak. What do you do? Do you seek it out and call the cops wherever you find it, maybe become a sort of masked avenger? Or do you address politically the conditions that cause prostitution? So why were you taking action in the first place? To satisfy your personal conscience (and out of sight, out of mind) or to eliminate oppression?

  6. Walker Says:
    October 30th, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    “…it is not a political question.”

    I don’t understand how this justifies not responding to the question but you are free to refuse to answer for whatever reason you choose.

    I will take a moment to share my thoughts for the benefit of the readers of this forum – Alex there is no need for you to respond.

    Personally, I think that much of what is wrong in the world is a result of structural issues inherent in the capitalist mode of production – however not everything. Defective personalities for example have more to do with DNA and shitty parents. I reject the line of thinking that characterizes capitalism as some sort of great Satan that all of our problems can be traced back to. Furthermore I think it is the height of depravity to adopt a philosophy that does not place a moral burden on the individual. This does not mean that structural issues are off the hook – but it recognizes that in the “here and now” you must act in the face of whatever personal or structural limitations there are to contend with.

    Alex, I recognize this means, as far as you are concerned I’m not a leftist or a Marxist. I’m fine with that. I don’t think you have the authority to make the final judgment but if that’s your call so be it. From your above comments above I think you feel your job is to expose quacks such as myself as frauds who are engaged in capitalist apologetics. In this regard I think you are completely mistaken but again, so be it.

    Your use of the term scripture is apt I think. I have had the opportunity over many years to debate theology with evangelicals and fundamentalists. I always find it striking how so many people feel that so many people “got it wrong” and are misleading their followers. If you want to compose a lengthy response go ahead, but this is my final word on the matter.

  7. alex_c Says:
    October 31st, 2011 at 1:19 am

    You evaded the question. There is child prostitution happening right now (along with countless other gross injustices)–what do you do, as part of your “individual,” “moral burden” to stop it? Or are you free from that “moral burden” if you don’t see it personally? I think that your moral individualism is just a way to assuage your personal guilt without addressing the social relations that created it, and will continue to generate the same problem.

    The conscious role of individuals combined voluntarily in the revolutionary party, the subjective factor of revolution, is the decisive factor for the victory of the working class in overthrowing capitalism. Lenin’s return to Russian in April 1917 was decisive in winning the Bolshevik party to a revolutionary line, to the call for, “Down with the Provisional Government! All Power To the Soviets!” I think it is our “moral burden” to seek to overthrow capitalism.

    Marxism accounts for imperialist war, famine amidst plenty, impoverished workers creating obscene wealth. In short, I don’t think that ‘defective personalities’ are the cause of the bulk of the problems that the world faces–but you can join the Christian right in your crusade against immorality and for individual responsibility. Your concern about ‘defective personalities’ based on ‘DNA’ and ‘shitty parents’ contains an echo from eugenics that they will gladly embrace.

    I already addressed the importance of rational engagement in historic debates of revolutionary movements. Do you think that we should not try to learn from the past to understand the successes and mistakes?

  8. Walker Says:
    October 31st, 2011 at 9:08 am

    I promised myself I would not respond, but I am a sucker for punishment.

    1. We’ve established that you evade my questions and I evade yours. This means we are both insincere and not interested in actually making any progress but rather want to fight. We should both be ashamed.

    2. I have consistently argued that there should be a unity between immediate action and an effort towards longer term structural changes. Your claim that I have no interest in addressing the question of social relations is false and you should stop making that claim.

    3. I never claimed that the bulk of the worlds problems are the result of individual defects. In fact I claim the exact opposite. All the claims that follow your false assertion are therefore misplaced.

    4. I never suggested that one should not study history as that is an idiotic position to take. When I said I am not interested in what anyone else other than you has to say, what I meant was, I wanted you to answer the question honestly and directly. Which you did not. Rather you countered with false claims about me.

    Please – lets end this.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

« Tory goofiness continues — Canada may buy nuclear submarines – Politics – CBC News
Battle rages over Ohio’s union-limiting law | The Globe and Mail »