Letters

Authoritarian DSA

Earlier this year, after admiring the organisation for about a decade, I finally joined the Democratic Socialists of America. In many ways, this was the kind of group I wanted to exist as a freshman in college, at the start of president George W Bush’s second term, when the only leftist group active in my area was a Trotskyist sect. Of course, DSA technically did exist then, but it was nothing like what it is today. When, last month, I attended my first meeting of the revitalised, multi-tendency group, I was deeply impressed.

For instance, DSA appears very good at seeking to address the not explicitly political needs of its members. The Hartford branch offered board game nights, parent meetups and a choir that sang labor songs. It quickly became clear to me that, if you had the time and inclination, DSA could be your whole life, in a good way. Of course, they were engaged in impressive, more politically focused efforts as well, like helping elect leftists to the Connecticut state house and pushing back against Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

As I read more about the internal workings of DSA at a national level, though, I was disappointed to learn that one of the two elected leaders of the organisation belonged to what’s called the Red Star caucus, which identifies as “Marxist‑Leninist”. For those who aren’t aware, “Marxist-Leninist” is a phrase which has really only been used as an ideological self‑description by Stalinists and their ilk. For instance, Vladimir Lenin and his followers in his lifetime didn’t use the term. Neither did Trotskyists. It was really just reserved for the most unapologetically authoritarian of authoritarian socialists.

On a certain level, I don’t think these various ideological descriptions are very relevant in the here and now. But, then again, this co-chair, Megan Romer, is one of two leaders of DSA. She’s increasingly being called upon to serve as a public spokesperson for the group, and is being identified as a Marxist-Leninist on major media platforms. No-one forced her to identify this way. She could just as easily identify as a socialist or a Marxist, but she’s chosen to identify with an extremely divisive, authoritarian tradition, which I can only assume doesn’t actually reflect the kind of socialism which most of DSA’s membership believes in.

Honestly, I’m not sure why anyone in the United States, circa 2026, would identify as a Marxist-Leninist. The best answer I can come up with is members of the Red Star caucus are either ignorant or edgelords. However, I want to be clear: I’m not calling for these self-avowed Marxist‑Leninists to be expelled. I think, once socialist organisations start purging members, it can create a vicious, self-destructive cycle that’s hard to stop. What I am saying, though, is I’d like members of the Red Star caucus to be voted out of significant positions of leadership. Ideally, Marxist‑Leninists would be reduced to the role of your crazy uncle at a family gathering. The sad fact is you’re going to have cranks in any large group.

So, yes, it’s about optics. I think it’s a very bad look to have a Marxist-Leninist - even a very well-meaning and potentially confused one - leading a democratic socialist organisation. But, more than that, it’s about substance. For me, socialism and democracy are inseparable: you can’t have one without the other. Socialism means democratic control of the means of production. At the risk of pursuing a ‘no true Scotsman’ defence, I don’t view Marxist‑Leninism as meaningfully socialist or leftist in any real way.

Jon Hochschartner
Connecticut

Animal rights

I enjoyed reading Jon Hochschartner’s August 6 letter on animal rights. He brings to our attention a number of individuals in the Democratic Socialists of America who are supportive of animal rights - “a cause which, sadly, receives scant attention across the political spectrum, including the left, where it fits most naturally”.

I have myself been a vegan for over 10 years, and I have been active in the animal rights movement for eight years. I am also a Marxist, so it pains me to say that animal rights does not fit naturally on the left, and that attempts to combine the two movements can only weaken both.

Marxism aims to empower those who are exploited to overthrow capitalism. The capitalist state is to be replaced by a workers’ state, and the market economy is to be replaced by a planned economy. Animals, unfortunately, have no capacity to take part in revolutions and, contrary to the claims of Donaldson and Kymlicka (referenced in Hochschartner’s letter), cannot meaningfully function as members of a state.

Indeed, contrary to the claims of Wadiwel (again referenced in Hochschartner’s letter), animals are not oppressed because of the profit motive: they are oppressed because of public demand for meat and milk. Animal products are only profitable because they are in high demand (remember that exchange value presupposes use value), and so, if capitalism was replaced with socialism, that demand would simply be fulfilled by socialised industries.

The danger of linking animal rights with Marxism is twofold: (1) Marxists are duped into thinking that animal suffering can be addressed after the revolution, meaning that the vital task of advocating veganism is deferred indefinitely; (2) animal rights advocates are duped into thinking that Marxism has more to do with morality than it has to do with seizing state power, meaning liquidation into liberal reformism.

I hope that this letter will not be used by anyone as justification for continued apathy towards animals. To say that sentient creatures should not be gassed or boiled to death, forced to spent their lives in crates too small for them to turn around, or selectively bred to the point that their bodies collapse under their own weight has nothing to do with Marxism, but that should not matter to any member of civilised society.

Finn Lees
Leeds

Unite and SWP

What follows was sent to the Socialist Workers Party on August 5, before the end of the Unite general secretary election:

The letter, ‘SW is wrong on Unite union leadership race: abstention is best’ (Socialist Worker July 17), provided me with some relief to see that there are supporters of the SWP who want to stand up against both sides of the Unite bureaucracy. I do not agree with everything in their letter - namely their opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea - but the general thrust I can fully get behind. Both candidates are rotten, and it is disorientating to take a side. A particularly important point they make is: “But in the key local strike - the Birmingham bin dispute, which your article fails to mention - Graham refused to mobilise the membership of Unite.” In your July 22 reply, you again failed to acknowledge this key class battle that Sharon Graham is selling out.

I want to make two points towards the said reply, titled ‘Future of Unite union won’t be determined by its general secretary, but by its membership’: (1) Sharon Graham’s rightwing policies are not things we can push to the side, and (2) her re-election will drive workers further into the arms of Reform.

Let us look at Graham’s policies for a moment. From outflanking the Tories to the right in 2022, when ordering workers at Ellesmere Port not to offload Russian oil, to suppressing pro-Palestine voices inside the union, to pressuring the Labour government for higher ‘defence’ spending, she has not merely made ‘rightwing interventions’, but proven herself in action as the pro-imperialist lieutenant of capital that she is. These are not mistakes and can’t simply be boiled down to imperfections. Sharon Graham has taken a side with the British establishment, always eager to prove her loyalty.

These examples may look like ‘bigger questions’, unrelated to the day-to-day struggles, but actually they have an immediate impact on all workers. Sanctions on Russian oil and gas have led to significant rises in fuel prices; suppressed pro-Palestinian voices in the union have emboldened Starmer’s attacks on basic democratic rights and free speech, whilst increased defence spending will guarantee cuts to crucial social services.

Her workplace strategy stems from the same place as this. On the key battlefronts, from the Luton Vauxhall and Port Talbot plants to the Birmingham bin strike, Graham refused to take the action needed to fight the employers effectively. As with the big-picture political questions, her refusal to take on the establishment is the defining feature. The strategy always boils down to begging the bosses and then convincing members to accept the bosses’ terms. Even when members force the union to adopt a more militant approach, such as the ongoing all-out strike in Birmingham, this fundamental strategy never changes. For over a year, Graham has pleaded with the council to make another offer to the strikers, but the council has ignored her, and the union is paralysed.

You correctly oppose Simon Dubbins’ pleas for “social partnership”, but ignore Sharon Graham’s active partnership with the bosses! Workers have suffered significant defeats under her leadership, and the union is in a worse place than it was five years ago. No-one, especially not the workers, is to blame apart from her and her lackeys. This brings me to my second point.

In the recent EC elections, whilst Graham’s slate won a large majority, the real winner was apathy. The turnout for most seats sat at around the 5%-6% mark. It was evident that most Unite members did not care to take a side. Most members were aware of the election through emails, social media posts, etc. The word was out there - it was not an organisational failure to inform members. Rather, most union members are looking at the state of the union and rightly placing the blame on both the current bureaucrats and those who came before Graham. This is why it is so important that socialists do not take a side with either.

The union has, apart from a few small and isolated examples, failed to make real, significant gains for their members under the Sharon Graham and Len McCluskey (now represented by Dubbins) wings. Union members want change and, as such, many are now even looking to Reform - obviously seeing that, if nothing else, they are at least opposed to the Labour government (unlike the union leaders).

Socialists who support either Graham or Dubbins are only muddying their own names. We need to focus on putting forward a socialist strategy that can actually defend our standing against the incoming onslaught and push back against the bosses. We can’t do that if we are supporting various wings of the bureaucracy that are obstacles to this, and we definitely won’t be able to build any sizeable base, given that the overwhelming majority of members already see right through these union leaders.

I urge the SWP to retract their support for Sharon Graham and, in future, consider putting forward a socialist candidate in opposition to the bureaucracy, if you are serious about building the militant union we need.

Tom G
Spartacist League Britain

Soviet sex

I am afraid, Mr Smithee, that the female population - or sections of it - do not exist simply to meet the sexual needs of “married men, whose wives are going through the menopause” or “shy and disabled men” or “those with Asperger’s syndrome” (Letters, April 23 and August 6). These are, frankly, disgusting and repulsive attitudes and used to attempt to justify a deeply exploitative and dangerous industry, where (mainly) women are bought and sold for money and used by (mainly) men for sex.

All sorts of women and all sorts of men will find each other attractive and may mutually choose to engage in sexual activity with each other. That is completely different to a commercial transaction where (usually) a man purchases sex from (usually) a woman, who has been forced through a whole range of circumstances into sex work. It is appalling that Mr Smithee completely conflates these two fundamentally opposite sets of encounters.

Smithee assert that “escorts will exist under moneyless communism” and “they will enjoy meeting clients”. No, normal, healthy, non-exploitative, mutually consensual, sexual relationships and contacts will exist - indeed flourish - under communism. Escorting, sex work, prostitution, will not. Let me tell Mr Smithee precisely how many ‘escorts’ would operate if they were not being paid for their ‘services’. The answer is zero. (And, of course, in most circumstances the majority of the payment does not go to the sex worker, but to the pimp or criminal gang owning or operating her.)

Yes, some ‘escorts’ may enjoy some aspects of their work - that is not the point. If they were not paid (or received some kind of benefit in kind - eg, drugs, accommodation, ‘protection’), they would not do it. Simple.

Although prostitution in any society is undesirable, I am not in favour of making it formally illegal. Certainly not in favour of making the women involved illegal or subject to prosecution. It is best reduced and ideally eliminated through changing the social, cultural and economic conditions which cause it to arise in the first place: societies divided by class and by patriarchy and misogyny and run on the basis of ruthless, callous exploitation of many of the most vulnerable.

I am certainly in favour of prosecuting to the full extent of the law the pimps and criminal gangs which run prostitution in most of the world. Women involved in sex work should have much greater access to the health and social care services they need to rebuild their lives, to leave prostitution if possible, and to stay as safe and well if they remain.

Smithee asserts that Stalin’s Soviet Union was “sexually repressed”. Complete and utter nonsense. This Smitheeism could be called a ‘Macnairism’: pronouncing on a subject he knows nothing whatsoever about, regurgitating some old slogans, comments or statements which have somehow stuck in their memory, and repeated with no sequential logic or evidence whatsoever. A film I’ve never heard of or books by a twisted and bitter anti-communist is no evidence at all.

What does “sexually repressed” actually mean? More or less sexual activity than in tsarist times? More or less than in the 1960s and 70s? More or less than in Yeltsin’s post‑communist Russia or than in Russia today? Compared with which other societies and when? Britain (or France, Germany or the USA) in the 1930s? In the late 19th century? What about compared to the present day, where incel culture appears to be a version of perceived sexual repression, echoed in a creepy way by Smithee’s advocacy of the need for sex workers?

As well as fear of unwanted pregnancies and to a lesser extent of sexually transmitted diseases, one of the main factors for ‘sexual repression’ is religious ideology, which can regard many forms of sexual activity as deeply sinful and worthy of private and public shame. As Smithee is plainly unaware, organised religion and ideology in Russia suffered something of a setback with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and in more concrete terms by the construction of an advanced, industrialised, modern socialist society in the late 1920s and 30s, and the development of a widely educated, literate and cultured Soviet population, probably the most so in the world. Communist ideology as regards the family and sexual relationships and practices has always advocated these should be on the basis of equality and consent, and equality and consent should be real, concrete and material, not just formal.

I suspect what Smithee is really referring to were efforts in the Stalin period to try and protect and strengthen the family (no-one was forced into these), by making divorce more rigorous than in immediate post‑revolutionary Russia, (thus, for example, making it harder for feckless and irresponsible men to clear off abandoning the mother and children), and restricting the number of abortions.

Let us examine the facts and realities of these and if they were truly about “sexual repression”. Women and families were positively encouraged to have families and help grow the population. The Soviet population like all others needed to renew itself and, the more young workers there were, the more economic and social value could be produced, to the benefit of all in the socialist society. Is this repression??

One might think increased levels of sexual activity were perhaps required to produce the sought results of more pregnancies, more children and a renewed population … In support, the socialist state gave additional cash payments to pregnant women and new mothers, extensive pregnancy, maternity and post-natal leave, job security, health and social care services for children and young people, childcare services, such as creches, nurseries, kindergartens, etc, to give parents as much freedom and choice as possible to re-engage with paid work and in leisure and cultural activities. Doesn’t sound like ‘sexual repression’ to me.

The divorce laws, tightened from earlier decrees, required both parties to consent to the divorce, to pay an administrative fee and there were harsh penalties for those who refused child alimony and other child support payments. Again, hardly “sexually repressive” - in fact it gave greater protection, rights and security to women, mothers and children.

The moves under the Stalin period to strengthen the family unit really represented a correction to earlier post‑revolution decrees, which sought to radically abolish or fast-track the withering away of the family unit. Of course, the political revolution and seizure of state power was not followed immediately by socialist economic and cultural revolutions, which themselves could only be preconditions and lay the foundations for the ultimate withering away of the family.

The reality was that in the 1920s, 30s, 40s and indeed subsequent decades, the great majority of Soviet people, at suitable times in their lives, preferred and wanted to engage in longer-term and committed relationships and to start and build families. The changes to family and related laws just reflected this reality. I would agree that - if the point was made, which it wasn’t - that the June 1936 Decree on the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood, which effectively banned legal abortion except where the mother’s life was in danger, was restrictive and socially conservative. But ‘sexually repressive’? Is there really evidence that lack of contraception or safe legal abortion reduces the amount of sexual activity in the population and outside formal family units? I don’t think so, so again, no evidence for Smithee’s assertion.

I might also ask how many other countries in the world had legal abortion or even abortion on demand in the 1930s? Even where legal, the procedure was often risky to the woman. Fortunately, and due to the horrible, negative consequences of illegal terminations, abortions were relegalised in the USSR in 1955 - a considerable period of time before similar legal reforms in ‘advanced’ western countries. So the notion that Soviet people were “sexually repressed” in the Stalin period is just a Smithee fantasy, a bit like his fantasy about sex workers.

For very different reasons, specific acts of male homosexuality were made illegal in the Soviet Union from 1933 (only legalised in 1993), and these laws were not formally liberalised (although in practice, provided they were in private and didn’t impinge on public awareness or decency, increasingly not prosecuted).

Male homosexuality in the 1930s was especially associated with Nazism in Germany and with counterrevolutionary activity (frequently linked with Nazi Germany) in the USSR itself and therefore to questions of national security. Yes, ‘repressive’ to some small sections of the male population, but certainly not for the great majority of socialist society.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

Sex work

While I think John Smithee somewhat romanticises sex work, there is a point well worth pursuing. I refer back to several years ago, when I attended the launch of a seminal book on the subject, Revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights. In terms of decriminalisation several points are made. The Scandinavian model - ie, sale is not illegal, while purchase remains illegal - puts women and young men at risk, as they have to go to more dangerous locations, where punters are less likely to be observed.

For the contributors the idea of licensed brothels is rejected, as by material socialist observation the house management makes the big money and controls the output, time, amount and volume, for which the women are required - thus the measure of exploitation.

Rather, being a free agent is the best option for many women and young men, so that the sex worker makes their own hours, where they feel ‘safe is best’. The contributors to the book are informed by real experience and have done academically rigorous work and write with keenness and clarity.

The theory part touches on the social constructionist, Jeffrey Weeks. More importantly it is a self-affirming development from positive mobilisation that came through the Sex Workers Advocacy and Reform Movement in the UK and the Sex Workers Alliance Ireland.

John Michael Ryan
Cork