There are several threads in Cde Sasco member's postulation that I take issue with. However, for the sake of clarity and being concise I will focus on four of the threads that bind his/her argument together.
Firstly, the Cde argues that instead of legalising prostitution (i.e. the sale of sex as a commodity that has both a use value and exchange value) as young communists we should rather engage on a campaign to abolish it from society. This is misguided: prostitution is a historical phenomenon. This means that it arises at a particular point in the history of society reflective of changing production relations. For instance, prostitution in our own country particularly in the Reef (PWV) arises because of the boom in mining, the circumvention of the peasant mode of production in the countryside (though it articulated and served as a life-line for the capitalist mode of production), the rise of young black wage labourers from the countryside. This was complemented by the depression in Lesotho leading to many young men leaving the countryside to work in mines in the South African reef. This left many young women with no subsistence as the land was barren and women were barred from accessing land unless through a male heir i.e. they were considered minors). With these material conditions prevailing i.e. young and sexually energetic men living in single sex hostels in the mines and women without any means of subsistence in Lesotho, prostitution became the answer. Historians argue that women did not initially turn to prostitution but in fact left the countryside of Lesotho to find their loved ones who left and never returned. Initially beer brewing became a dominant economic activity but eventually prostitution found its feet. This therefore means that prostitution cannot be ‘abolished’ currently. Doing away with prostitution requires the reconstitution of society on a classless basis to undermine the material conditions that give rise to prostitution in the first place. I am in no way disputing the fact that we can campaign against the practice, but such must seek to protect those most exploited by it and expose the exploiters: predominantly pimps that claim ‘ownership of these women’s bodies (I am speaking here in particular about female prostitution). It is more sound and realistic to argue that prostitution under a socialist and ultimately communist society will simply wither away as there would be no reasons for its existence. ‘Prostitution is only the specific expression of the universal prostitution of the worker’. This is by no means an argument to defer the question until the revolution is realised. I have two problems with his second assertion. Firstly the Cde ridicules the use of the word taboolisation. Sure it does not exist in micro-soft and western created computer programmes. The word Howzit does not exist on Microsoft but it is surely a common word that we use. I would expect that a Marxist-Leninist would have a deeper understanding of language and how it forms part of the bourgeois epoch and other preceding epochs. There is no prescription on the formation of words, some words used today were non-existent 50 years ago. Secondly, is the vulgar failure to comprehend that value systems and morals arise at particular points in history. For instance, what is called promiscuity and incest has not always been frowned upon. Why must we as Marxist-Leninist take a moralist (the same morality which is socially constructed) stance as opposed to a materialist outlook. On the third thread, I think the comrades of KZN have fundamentally been misunderstood by the Cde . What is simply being said is that the fact that prostitution is this under world of darkness is actually more advantageous for the exploiters. For a young girl who is lured into a city life of prostitution under the guise of getting a job, there is no one to run to as her mother, family, brother and society are likely to reject her. Does not this benefit the pimp instead of the young girl who is locked into a vicious cycle of prostitution. I agree that there structural conditions will not be removed with the legalisation of prostitution but there is an opportunity to protect young women and children. This of course has to go hand in hand with campaigns and efforts to transform gender relations. On the last argument I can be slightly sympathetic with the Cde as I think KZN comrades are over-emphasising the material conditions over dialectics (i.e. the need for change). However, the Cde is also losing the plot by over-emphasising the need for change (dialectics) above what is materially possible. A Marxist-Leninist is discerned from being able to merge the two. Recognising the need for change also means that reforms (NOT REFORMISM) can be utilised to score victories and as means of class struggle not ends in themselves. The Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act or the 8 hour working day are all products of workers’ struggle. We cannot reject them simply because they are positive twigs that grow on the branches of a capitalist tree, but we rather embrace them as symbolic of the workers’ momentary victory over capital and as means to a particular ends. The same must apply with prostitution. Lastly, COSATU has resolved on Commercial Sex Workers/prostitutes as workers who are also suffering exploitation and need to be organised under SACCAWU. Communist Regards Phindile Kunene On Feb 11, 3:19 pm, sasco member <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Comrades > > In recent days the YCL in KZN issued a press release in which it declared > openly and publicly support for sex workers and thier trade. This conference > as some would remember, was widely publicised in the media and there was > discourse from all points of view. > > In part the statement of the YCL of KZN says: *"The Young Communist League > in KwaZulu Natal had observed with keen interest the first sex workers > conference which took place in Johannesburg"*. And thereafter it > states apparently, the issues of discussion which the YCL of KZN is *observing > with keen interest!* > > The statement goes on enthusiastically, to highlight the challenges that sex > workers are facing including among others, vulnerability and threats to > violence, disease and many other, as the statement argues, *"untold > stories".* > > Oddly and shockingly, the statement reveals the bottom line of what appears > to be the main reason why the statement was issued in the first instance. > The statement reads thus: > > *"In light of the above and many other untold stories the Provincial > Committee will like to support the resolution which emanated from the > conference, of lobbing for the legalization of prostitution. We also vow to > campaign and combat the taboolisation of prostitution. To combat HIV and > AIDS and ending the exploitation faced by sex workers legalization of > prostitution is needed. This in no way should be viewed as the promotion of > prostitution but rather as the response to reality".* > ** > The central thesis (which I will advance later) of the YCL of KZN > statement is based on the following beliefs and convictions: > > 1. "Support for the resolution which emanated from the conference" > namely: *lobbying > for the legalization of pronstitution*. Phew! > > 2. "We also vow to campaign and combat the taboolisation (whatever this > concept means) of prostitution". > > 3. "To combat HIV and AIDS and ending the exploitation faced by sex workers > legalization of prostitution is needed". > > 4. "This in no way should be viewed as the promotion of prostitution *but > rather as the response to reality".* > ** > I state *under correction* that I do not recall anywhere in which the YCL > declared a policy/position on prostitution or sex workers. But to the extent > that such a policy exists, I doubt if indeed it would articulate such views > given the fact that young communists are scholars of Marxism-Leninism one of > the advanced and progressive body of thinking/ideas in society. The question > then arises; what would be the typical position of young scholars of > Marxism-Leninism regarding prostitution? > > As a broad outline, I would like to argue that Marxism-Leninism would take a > rather progressive approach towards the issue of prostitution in society. > This progressive outlook of Marxism-Leninism would argue for a more nuanced > and careful articulation on matters of prostitution. > > I assume it would use as its basis the *Communist Manifesto* and Frederick > Engels' *Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State.* In broad > terms in these classics, the point is made that patriarchy, gender > oppression and exploitation of man by man is precipitated by the division of > society into classes. That the system of patriarchy is sustained by the > capitalist mode of production which in essence defines social relations > between human beings. And in the main, through our the development of > history, the role of a man has been that of domination over women and this > in return has reduced the status of women to zero hence it took society many > centuries to give women the basic right to vote, throughout history we know > it as a fact that many societies treated women as minors. To this extent in > almost all religions, as an example even God cannot be imagined in any > other form except as a man > > Marx and Engels argued that "the bourgeosie used their wives like > instruments of production...(and) as instruments of production (they) were > to be exploited". They aregued that even marriage could be considered as "a > legalized form of prostitution". And they go on to conclude that only > through the abolition of the class system would prostitution 'both public > and private', be abolished. > > Of course when they say 'both private and public' they imply that there can > be no voluntary prostitution. Prostitution is exploitation of human beings > and degrades human dignity. There is nothing dignified about human > trafficking. Selling of human beings and it is on the very same basis that > as communists would argue, the sale of human labour is exploitation because, > both natural and industrial production should be for the benefit of humanity > as a whole. Nobody must claim private ownership of naturally placed wealth > and industrial wealth which comes into being as a finished product sourced > from natural endowments (which as implied above we humanity collectively > owns) should not as well; be appropriated by a few at the expense of the > many. > > Based on this understanding of prostitution as human trafficking and > therefore exploitation, it goes without saying that even, the latest > innovation of male prostitution of which in essence is a way to portray > prostitution as being 'voluntary' as affecting or being practiced by both > sexes must be dismissed with the same contempt as when we talk of female > prostitution. > > Of course in the 21st century the position of women has changed in terms of > how society treats women and their role in society. Then Engels argued in > the classic stated above that: "When she (a woman) fulfills her duties in > the private service of her family, she remains excluded from public > production and cannot earn anything and when she wishes to take part in > public industry and earn her living independently, she is not in a position > to fulfil her family duties". And thus the exploitation of women becomes > two-fold first as a woman and then as an instrument of labour in production > and then in SA we add colour (black) and we call it *tripple oppression*. > > But today, the status of women has dramatically changed due to struggles > waged by women and progressives all over the world. And of course more still > needs to be done and I thought the YCL of KZN would identify prostitution as > an area of focus to continue its revolutionary work on gender and social > transformation. > > Now that the context is laid let me deal with each of the four beliefs or > rather vows of the YCL of KZN and expose how wrong and unMarxist they are: > > 1. Should we be "lobbying" for legalization of prostitution? I dont think > scholars of Marxism-Leninism should do that at all. I think they should be > arguing strongly, lobbying society and campaigning for an end to this form > of human trafficking. They should be arguing for a different society that > creates material conditions that will not condemn people to prostitution. A > society that will see some of these things as principally and morally wrong. > Does this mean that our value system is so much corrupt that we see nothing > wrong with the capitalist value system that says: *"continue to exploit > yourselves, put in place rights blah blah blah..."* instead of abolition and > creation of a new society based on progressive and commonly shared values. > Can we really believe that this is an official statement of young scholars > of Marx? Can we really? If the answer is yes, then its quite strange to be a > young communist in SA. > > 2. Unbelievably the second vows goes like this: "We also vow to campaign and > combat the taboolisation (whatever this concept means like I said above, > which my computer has rejected as non-existent word in English) of > prostitution". Again what value system informs this vigour and boldness? Why > should prostitution not be taboo in society? Why must we not frown upon > it? Before I write such a statement I would first consider whether would I > accept prostitution if it was happening closer in my family by one of the > members? > > 3. Oh! here goes another vow: "To combat HIV and AIDS and ending the > exploitation faced by sex workers legalization of prostitution is needed". > Is this the official policy of the YCL? Should we promote it? Where does > this come from? How would legalization of prostitution help reduce HIV and > AIDS? Is the opposite not likely? How scientific is this assertion? How will > a free world of prostitution help reduce the infection rate? Do > social/sexual relations suddenly change materially once prostitution is > legalised, for instance would there be more respect for the right to sexual > freedom on those who engage in this trade? > > 4. The killer one comes when the revolutionary YCL of KZN gives up its > life-blood. The task of revolutionaries in society is to change society. Now > how can the YCL of KZN then say: "This in no way should be viewed as the > promotion of prostitution *but rather as the response to reality".* There > are two things on this last shocking statement of the YCL of KZN*.* > > - First it contradicts the whole message of the press release. How can > one say "support the resolution of the conference" and seconds later say > "This in no way shoul be viewed as promotion of prostitution". In what way > can this be in the same paragraph and one remains content that everything > is > perfect with this statement. > - Second, I have a problem with the statement "*but rather as the > response to reality". *Then why is one in a revolution, calling himself > a revolutionary if we will be content with the status quo as it obtains in > society? What then is revolutionary about us? In any case, this last > statement is consistent with the broad theme/thesis of the press release > simply put: "we must seek to consolidate prostitution, protect rights of > practitioners blah blah blah..." So are we here to change reality or to > accpet it as God given? > > And it is strange because I think such a position by YCL of KZN is sexist > valgur and offensive to female members of the YCL for many obvious reasons. > For one it means the YCL of KZN pays lip-service or knows nothing about real > issues and challenges of women and secondly, it means that the YCL of > KZN supports exploitation of human beings broadly. > And for Mzukisi to start his intervention by saying "not that I'm a customer > or buyer" is very sexist and derogatory to women. Atleast if he wanted to > express his non-participation in the act, he should have said "I neither do > I sell nor do I buy". Our discourse must show that we understand that the > trade has come to introduce men as practitioners, at the very least. > > Decriminalise or legalize it? The effect is the same fundamentally, its > semantics. But when its legalized would it mean that sex workers would be > regarded as business people from whom government must expect tax and other > levies? The fact that its done in other countries does not make it correct > but merely fashionable, a wrong fashion indeed! > > So, again I still maintain that before we say or do things we must be sure > of our facts and understand the impact our statements have on society > broadly. Where are facts here? Where is the truth in this statement? Is it > truth to tell people that prostitution is correct and must be promoted and > protected? Is it a matter of fact to draw corrolations where they dont > exist? Is it a fact that society aspires to this value system? Where is > science in all this? Where is the revolutionary element in all this? > > Comrades, I would have thought that young scholars in the teachings of Marx > would do what is right...Always align one's practice with theory > consistently! > > Should I then join the YCL? > > SM > > ** > ** > > For more information contact > Mafika Mndebele > 0724473362 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
