Letters

Rights for all

I am probably a very slow learner, but it has become blatantly obvious to me that, when the myriad Trotskyoid sects, with their ‘mass membership’ of single figures, advocate ‘trans rights’, what in fact they are calling for is the ‘right’ of biological men to violate women’s safe spaces. I know that is putting it bluntly, but it is important, I think, to get to the essence of the issue here (and I do use the word ‘violate’ deliberately).

Women, even in advanced capitalist societies, such as Britain, have hardly achieved anything like real economic and social equality. Indeed, probably as part of the decaying of such ‘advanced’ societies, we are seeing wholesale and increasing mass violence and abuse of women and girls - physical, mental and emotional.

Women, over decades - and indeed centuries - of struggle, have fought for the concept of ‘safe spaces’ for women, especially in settings where they may be most vulnerable, including criminal justice, prisons, healthcare, victim support services, including for crimes by men and other forms of abuse, public toilets and sanitary facilities. These ‘protected and safe spaces’ for women are very far from widespread, almost always extremely badly funded and far from what is actually needed for vulnerable women and girls.

In fact, socialists and communists should be arguing for far more ‘protected and safe spaces’ for women across many other areas and settings in society, wherever in fact, women advocate them. They should all be far better funded, made genuinely safe and much better staffed and resourced than at present.

When the various sects and factions put their lists of ‘transitional demands’ together, ‘trans rights’ are always strangely near the top, but in very many cases they simply omit the woman question altogether. Extremely revealing and damning.

Women are over half the population and over half the working class, however we define this, so do the Trots think women have already achieved full emancipation and equality within capitalist society? That must be the logical conclusion if demands for women as women are dropped altogether, marginalised or made explicitly secondary to ‘trans rights’.

I and most people I know are strongly opposed to any and all forms of discrimination against so-called ‘trans people’ - which clearly covers a wide spectrum with a range of complex needs and wishes. At one end are those suffering from the genuine psychiatric disorder of gender dysphoria: ie, believing they were ‘born into the wrong gendered body’ and suffering great amounts of psychological distress. Others may be born intersex: eg, they may have both female and male genital organs, or some missing or underdeveloped.

These are genuine and distressing conditions. I have the utmost sympathy for such people, and do advocate that the range of necessary health, social care, education and other services for this group of people should be far better than they are now.

I don’t, frankly, believe that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be allowed to receive medical or other clinical interventions which would change their physical bodies irreversibly. Young children and those in adolescence are going through all sorts of natural changes anyway, struggling and searching for their identities, and many in this group come from very traumatic backgrounds. It would seem criminal to allow children to have irreversible medical changes to their bodies before all these issues have been worked through and, if possible, disentangled, and before they are old enough to make literally life-changing decisions.

There are some who identify as a different gender to their physical body, but do not need formal medical help or support. There are others who do not necessarily identify as a different gender, but prefer to dress and present themselves as if they were of the other gender. People should be free and respected and without discrimination to live their lives as they choose, as long as they are not impinging on the rights of other people.

Rights are not and cannot be absolute or completely unfettered. Everything is relative. We can and should agree to the majority of ‘trans demands’ to be free from discrimination and prejudice. But the demand that so-called ‘trans women’ - ie, biological men - should be allowed to access women-only safe spaces is completely unacceptable and should be firmly rejected. It is wrong in principle and also violates what should be basic rights for biological women, who happen to be the majority, but are oppressed under patriarchy and exploited under capitalism.

Advocating ‘gender-neutral’ facilities to replace ‘women only’ spaces sounds very liberal and democratic, but at best is a cop-out, and would de facto abolish the principle of safe spaces for women as women. Yes, gender-neutral should be part of the mixed economy of provision to meet everyone’s needs and preferences, but in addition to greatly enhanced women-only facilities, not in place of them.

We should be fighting for genuine equality, justice and rights for all people, groups, sections and individuals who are oppressed within modern capitalist society. Of course, many - probably the majority - of such oppressed groups are members of the working class, who are also subject to class exploitation as integral to the operation of the capitalist economy.

Some of the Trot groups claim the only answer to oppression is ‘socialist revolution’ and ‘communism’. Utterly brainless. Yes, in the final analysis, the creation of a completely classless, harmonious and beautiful society may be necessary for the complete elimination of all oppression, discrimination and prejudice (probably requiring several generations of such a society). But are the sects really saying to people suffering from oppression, discrimination and prejudice, they must wait a hundred years or so before their issues can be addressed? In practice, yes.

In vivid contrast, the true, communist approach is to fight for full equality, justice, democracy, rights, etc for all oppressed groups and sections in the here and now - yes, under existing capitalist society. We don’t have any illusions these can all be met under capitalism, although important and real advances can and should be made.

More importantly, the struggle for equality, democracy and justice exposes the fundamental inability of capitalism to adequately meet the needs of the great majority of the people. Even more important, the struggle for equality, democracy and rights for all oppressed people in the here and now will help shape and prefigure the nature and content of the socialism we want to establish.

We can’t assume that socialism will automatically enable full equality, rights and removal of all discrimination and prejudice against currently oppressed sections and groups. These have to be fought for now, so the socialist society of the future - shaped and informed by current struggles - is genuinely emancipatory for all working people.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

YP dog’s breakfast

By their very nature, constitutions are status quo-maintaining documents. It is one reason, for example, why Americans still have “the right to bear arms” in 2025. That right is based on a document agreed in 1776. Moreover, in the case of Your Party, the proposed constitution will require a two-thirds majority vote to amend.

The new party’s draft constitution is, to be blunt, quite a loathsome document, as the Weekly Worker’s correspondent, Carla Roberts, (and others) have pointed out. It essentially maintains a rigidly top-down structure well into 2026 and beyond.

So what’s the solution? Tweaking a few clauses? Or trying to change major ones which are badly flawed? At least five of the six MPs now controlling YP will be deeply resistant to making any major changes to a draft constitution we assume they approved.

The latest issue of The Left Lane, headed “A socialist party needs to be run on socialist values and based on a socialist political culture”, argues that YP supporters should be pushing that a one-year “sunset clause” be inserted into this constitution, so that “it will - to continue the metaphor - sink quietly below the horizon in November 2026”. We don’t want to be restrained by this dog’s breakfast of a document for the next decade ... or more.

We need to pick the terrain on which we fight. I argue that we can make more progress towards a much touted ‘member-led’ party, when we have operating branches and an elected executive committee.

Alan Storey
Editor, The Left Lane

Defend YP’s Sultana

Zarah Sultana’s recent round of interviews has sent liberals into meltdown. Her ‘crime’? Calling Nato an “imperialist war machine”, saying that Zelensky “isn’t a friend of the working class” and - sin of all sins! - attacking the Green Party for supporting Nato and refusing to cut ties with Israel. These basic truths have led a whole cabal of liberals, pro-imperialist ‘progressives’ and pro-Ukraine warmongers to line up and denounce Zarah.

From Labour MPs like Luke Charters (who he?) to Nato stooge and turncoat Paul Mason; from Pussy Riot to Spectator hacks - all took turns to lash out at Sultana, shrieking about “Putin’s talking points”- the standard accusation thrown at anyone who does not support nuclear war with Russia. Any socialist worth their salt should know that, if these imperialist cockroaches are furious, she’s touched a raw nerve.

Alas! A whole line-up of liberals who think they are socialists not only joined in, but even initiated the backlash. Owen Jones (who, as a rule, picks the wrong side in a fight) attacked Sultana for hair-splitting over “minor” differences. Same theme from Novara Media host Michael Walker. Nish Kumar dutifully defended Nato. The ‘foreign office socialists’ of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign launched a whole tirade against her on X in defence of Nato’s war aims. Unsurprisingly, all these figures orbit around the Greens.

Sultana’s comments, and the reaction to them, have the benefit of revealing that a huge part of the British left is in fact made up of nothing more than liberals who think internationalism means supporting Nato’s war drive against Russia, and that socialism is possible without opposing the biggest imperialist alliance ever created.

Also, the reaction to Sultana’s comments shows that Nato isn’t a ‘minor’ issue, as the liberals argue, but a red line for the ruling class. Why do you think every journalist always asks leftwing leaders their views on Nato? It isn’t to make conversation. It’s because the ruling class needs to know who they can work with (ie, coopt), and who is simply beyond the pale.

That’s the difference between Polanski, who merely criticises Nato, but wants to remain in it, and Sultana, who calls it what it is - an imperialist war machine that Britain must quit. Polanski’s position is compatible with the aims of the ruling class - just sprinkled with pacifist glitter that will be easy to brush off, when push comes to shove. Sultana’s is a clear threat to the British rulers that must be crushed. And, for this, they are already getting the assistance of their liberal coterie.

Sultana is under tremendous pressure to stop talking about Nato and criticising the Greens. But the main danger will not necessarily come from those who are attacking her in public. Rather, chances are that it will come from the layer of crusty councillors and conservative independent MPs who have real control of Your Party. No doubt, behind the scenes they will try to twist her arm to shut her up.

What Sultana needs to do is to openly declare a faction. She needs to stop pretending that the leaders of Your Party are not absolutely opposed to her politics, and openly rally people to her positions. Without this, her good words are only her personal opinion and will provide a left cover for Corbyn, Adnan Hussain and the rest of the discredited clique that pulls the strings in Your Party. Socialists must argue for this, and must fight in the regional assemblies, so that Sultana’s sharp points over Nato, Zionism and class-struggle politics become party policy.

But, so far, where has the socialist left been? There has been a deafening silence in almost all quarters against the anti-Sultana liberal backlash. Apparently, the Revolutionary Communist Party has just given up on Your Party and has become infatuated with the Greens. The Socialist Party is banging on about next year’s local elections and a “no-cuts People’s Budget”, completely removed from the actual struggle in Your Party. The Socialist Workers Party is jockeying for organisational control of local branches, careful not to offend Corbyn. Then there’s Archie Woodrow, a member of Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century and leading figure of the Democratic Socialists inside Your Party. While claiming agreement with Sultana’s points … he still joined the anti-Sultana bandwagon, denouncing her interventions as “dishonest” and complaining that she is “dictating policy”.

To the far left: “Hello! Anybody there?!” Yes, we need to criticise Sultana. But we must first defend her against the liberal lynch mob! Those socialists who refuse to do this out of fear of alienating Corbyn, the Greens and liberals, are useless to the class struggle. Change course, or get out of the way.

Vincent David
Spartacist League Britain

YP democracy

The Your Party draft constitution, while claiming to be democratic, includes the same fundamental flaw as the Labour Party (and the Green Party, for that matter): an elected ‘party leader’.

While there is some indication that the ultimate decision about how exactly the office of party leader is going to work is to be decided after electing the first leader, it is now obvious that the very idea of one individual being the ‘leader’ of the party is not only against socialist principles: it has the practical effect of causing chaotic infighting, as the patronage networks of the individual leader and other potential individual leaders constantly squabble to ensure who retains or gains power.

That is not to say we should adopt the ‘co-leaders’ model, as that ensures that, instead of all the patronage networks fighting over one centre of power, there are two centres of power often competing with each other. This was a problem for the Romans, with their rule of two elected consuls, as it is for us with the rule of Corbyn and Sultana. Socialists, the rank and file of the party, must argue for the executive committee - elected either annually or every two years by the membership - to lead the party between conferences.

Of course, there are always going to be divisions between factions of the party, but with the rule of a committee at least the influence of ‘celebrities’ such as Corbyn or Sultana would be reduced, with them only having one vote each among many others, instead of being able to declare policy or decide the party’s direction themselves. Factions would therefore have to win support for their policies and ideas among the party members, rather than there being clandestine manoeuvres among cliques and patronage networks.

Parliamentary parties, by procedure, must have a ‘parliamentary leader’, but this individual should be chosen by the executive committee and must have no additional powers. The matter of deciding how the party votes on legislation must be decided by either the executive committee or other democratic mechanisms within the party.

We should also think seriously about the future of the party. If it is successful then eventually the party is going to be the official opposition, at which point there must be a ‘shadow cabinet’, and eventually, if the party is elected to office, a prime minister and cabinet. We cannot work via the same conventions as most political parties, allowing a ‘leader’ to seek a ‘mandate’ from the country, so that they can appoint the cabinet and decide policy effectively by themselves (that is what a prime minister does: if their cabinet disagrees with them, they can simply remove their opponents from it).

The executive committee must appoint the cabinet, and decide policy. A Your Party prime minister must not, like those of other parties, become a celebrity president who controls both the executive and legislative agendas. Instead they must be subordinate to the executive committee, which could remove them from office at any time.

We should not be campaigning for some celebrity politician to rule the people of Britain. Rather we should campaign for a mandate for our party to govern, and that the party functions as a democratic instrument of its members.

Dovah
Oxfordshire

YP Manchester

Between 125 and 150 members of Your Party met in Manchester for the pre-conference assembly - a disappointing turnout, considering it was for the entirety of Greater Manchester. The hastily organised event was stoically run by local volunteers, who had been drafted in at the last minute.

The assembly itself would not have taken place without the efforts of the Stockport proto-branch, which, with very little money or time, managed to secure a venue. Those at the new party centre would do well to reflect on the fact that an unrecognised branch, without the ability to contact local members or to choose how they are represented at conference, were the only reason members across Greater Manchester were able to meet at all.

The assembly itself started off chaotically, when a member of Socialist Alternative sought a vote on changing the format of the day from non-voting breakout groups to a plenary session with votes. Despite there almost certainly being a majority in the room for this, the facilitators were directed by an unknown figure to refuse any vote or changes at that point. However, from there on in the assembly did defy the diktats of the new party centre and took votes and had discussions that deviated from what was prescribed. This in part was down to the sensible and calm approach of the facilitators, who sought to give wide scope to the breakout groups, but also to the organised left - particularly the Greater Manchester Left Caucus, the Democratic Socialists and RS21, who all had mobilised a significant number of the attendees and also brought the largest number of younger party members to the assembly. The SWP, Socialist Alternative, Anticapitalist Resistance, SPEW, Counterfire and the Revolutionary Communist Group were all well represented too.

We were broken up into 13 breakout groups that were tasked with going through the constitution, the standing orders and the political statement rather swiftly. That went out of the window immediately and most groups focused on questions and sections of the documents that were most contentious. Every group voted on amendments or statements that were to be fed back to the assembly and many raised the same concerns, gripes and amendments.

Thanks to a combination of votes and applause during the feedback session, some common themes were obvious. Nobody was remotely impressed or assured by the inept stewardship of the new party by the Independent Alliance and Jeremy Corbyn’s office, with many groups calling for the leadership election to happen immediately after the conference or far before the May elections and for no reserved or automatic seats for MPs and councillors. This was also backed up by almost every group feeding back that the branches should be established immediately. Other wide areas of agreement were that branches should be well funded and be able to direct their own work. The need to unite the left and to scrap the attempt to ban members of socialist organisations and factions from the constitution had near unanimous support.

There was also widespread support for ensuring all MPs, elected representatives and officers were paid the average wage of a skilled worker, were open to recall by branches and members, and were subject to reselection and term limits. Likewise collective leadership was preferred over a single leader, with only one of the 13 breakout groups favouring a single leader. In terms of organising conference, nobody was satisfied with what had been taking place, with most groups tilting towards branches electing and sending delegates in the future - though there was also support for sortition or a mix of both.

On the political statement and on uniting the left, there was near universal support for a much clearer socialist basis for the new party, with many groups wanting the new party to be openly for trans liberation, against Zionism, and for an end to the slaughter and occupation of the Palestinian people - as well as getting Britain out of Nato, scrapping the anti-trade union laws and so on. It was proposed that the new party must not enter government at any level until the minimum demands, programme or manifesto could be met. This was well received, but clearly needs further agitation and explanation.

All of these votes and accompanying notes have been sent back to the new party centre. Knowing that Manchester, along with many other assemblies over the last week, have voted on amendments, we should expect and demand that these are heard and given to delegates as options at the conference. What Manchester showed in a small way is that the real engine of this new party is actually the organised left - those who are the backbone of our unions, tenants campaigns and Palestine protests. It is clear that the opportunity for the left to become more than the sum of its parts is still there and communists must roll up their sleeves and fight for it.

CJ
Manchester

YP South London

Your Party’s South London regional assembly convened on November 2 to discuss its four founding documents and was attended by roughly 350-400 people. Like most other assemblies, we were organised into small focus groups of about 10 members to discuss small sections of the documents. There was a lot of sentiment for this process to be run differently.

A comrade from the Greenwich and Bexley proto-branch wrote a good resolution arguing against the ongoing ‘stewardship’ of the Independent Alliance of MPs until March 2026 and calling for a change in the agenda, in order to have some time to discuss the documents together as a whole group and express a collective view on key issues via a consultative vote. He got some support for this, including 10 signatures from our Lewisham proto-branch. But, when another member attempted a similar request at the beginning of the meeting, he was dismissed by the self-selected leadership running it, despite a significant minority raising their hands to at least be able to hear and vote on it. This was unfortunately in keeping with the lack of democracy and transparency of the whole process leading up to the national conference in a few weeks.

The facilitators of the small breakout groups are tasked with typing up their discussion notes, which will then apparently be indeterminately composited and reviewed. The whole thing felt like a performative farce and the discussions of the documents were almost incidental - in contrast to the heartening early reports of the South Yorkshire assembly the same day, which managed to overturn the prescribed discussion rules and allow consultative votes. The ‘Sheffield Declaration’ was used as a framework for this: a set of amendments to the founding documents, which include basic workers’ democratic demands, like being able to recall our representatives.

We spoke with others at the event who want to make YP a real vehicle for working class power. There is determination to not create another Labour Party mark two and a burning need for a mass working class party - we have heard this countless times in our local branch as well. We want to take Zarah Sultana at her word: “We are not here to beg for crumbs off the table. We are taking the fucking lot.”

But to do that we will have to engage in political struggle for revolutionary change. We must be distinct from capitalist parties like the Greens, who are already implementing cuts and claiming that continuing this is inevitable. In contrast, YP must stand on a ‘no cuts’ basis and defiance of the anti-trade union laws as part of a fight to nationalise the major corporations without compensation under workers’ democratic control of all of society.

We will have our differences about the best way forward, but these need to be democratically debated at every level of YP, rather than subordinated to the next electoral campaign. Only then do we stand a chance of winning - at the ballot box, but, more importantly, in the streets and workplaces.

We can be reached at marxistbulletin@gmail.com.

Roxanne Baker and Hans-Peter Breitman
Lewisham YP proto-branch

Learning Play

What started life at Communist University in August this year as the ‘Learning Play cultural programme’ takes its next step this weekend as a fringe to the Historical Materialism London conference at the SOAS University of London running from November 6 to 9.

There will be performance fragments taking place between various sessions each day and a gathering on the Saturday to explore a present-day emulation of what Bertolt Brecht and Walter Benjamin planned as a “Diderot Gesellschaft” - an international collective of radical artists, writers and scientists. We are meeting on the steps of the main building at 1.45pm, from where we will go to a room with Zoom facilities. Anyone caring to join online can contact me on my social media outlets @tamdeanburn.

We also have a radio broadcast probing these themes on the Friday evening from 10 to 11.30pm on the Bad Punk show on ResonanceFM.com.

Tam Dean Burn
email

More ‘terrorists’?

The number of Allianz offices hit by protestors mounted to 15 on November 3, after activists sprayed paint and smashed windows over the arms insurer in Barcelona, Italy, The Netherlands, Mexico and Ireland. Actions started on Sunday night in the UK, France, Germany, Austria, Spain and Taiwan, after Allianz renewed its contract with Israel’s main weapons provider, Elbit Systems, on November 1.

Allianz is one of Europe’s largest insurance companies, fuelling destruction worldwide through its underwriting practices. It insures Textron, complicit in the genocide in Gaza, and US nuclear weapons; and Chevron, which bankrolls the genocide as Israel’s largest gas producer.

Allianz has drawn criticism for investing in Israeli shares and bonds, which the UN’s special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, claimed are “implicated in the occupation and genocide”.

Allianz shields the world’s worst wrong-doers from accountability, while drawing premiums from unimaginable human suffering and environmental destruction. That is deranged, inhumane profiteering at its very worst. We have no choice but to escalate till they withdraw.

Sunday’s actions marked the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when the British government and Zionists signed over Palestinian lands to occupation and then waged over 30 years of British military assaults against Palestinians.

Shut the System
email