Letters

Deeply shocking

It is still deeply shocking, although not at all surprising, that significant figures of the right, in the mass media and, I have to say, some leading figures of the Jewish community in Britain have used the recent apparent anti-Semitic attacks in London to call for the end of ‘hate marches’ in the capital.

I say ‘apparent’, because, yes, of course, the targets appear to be specifically Jewish, but certainly in the most recent case a Muslim man was also attacked (no mention whatsoever in the mass media), and I question how far mentally disturbed and possibly mentally disordered individuals can be consciously anti-Semitic.

What are the so-called ‘hate marches’ these people want banned? Presumably, these are the mass demonstrations, which especially since October 2023 have been calling for the end of Israel’s genocidal and criminal war in Gaza, increasing ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the occupied West Bank and, more recently, Israel’s leading role in the horrendous and criminal war on Iran. Plus, Israel’s own war on Lebanon, where it is not only deliberately wiping out civilians and essential civilian and human infrastructure, but is obviously seeking to create a ‘scorched earth’ area in southern Lebanon.

Are these really ‘hate marches’, which are calling for the end of war, genocide, mass destruction and devastating loss of innocent life? And, calling for the national, democratic, social and indeed basic human rights to actually be able to live, for the Palestinian people? And calling for the sovereign and national rights of the Lebanese and Iranian peoples to be fully respected and implemented?

Yes, people are angry. We have every right to be - and frankly would be less than human if we weren’t bitterly angry. Even Donald Trump appeared exasperated and angry at Israel deliberately violating the initial ceasefire negotiated with Iran by massively escalating its attacks on Lebanon. But this anger is clearly and unequivocally directed at the state of Israel. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the perpetrators happen to be of the Jewish religion and culture and that many claim to be of Jewish ethnicity.

The state of Israel, a settler-colonial state, transplanted by western powers into the middle of mandate Palestine, was seemingly purposely designed to cause war, death, destruction and destabilisation across the Middle East, on behalf of western imperialism. (The different imperialist powers also, of course, have different and conflicting interests and rivalries between themselves, hence individual powers have at different times alternately supported Israel, the Arab states and nations, and some Arab and other states against each other.)

None of the above is due to anyone being of the Jewish religion, culture or ethnicity. It may be pointed out that large sections of the Old Testament are explicitly violent, vile and implicitly genocidal, but this applies to all of the Abrahamic religions, and as materialists we cannot accept that ideological texts written thousands of years ago by flawed human beings are actual drivers for modern-day actions and behaviour.

The real ‘hate marches’ are surely those which are explicitly pro-Israel and at least implicitly supporting the current wars, mass murders and destruction being committed by that state. As a human being, let along as a proud, committed, dedicated and disciplined communist, advocating the liberation of all humanity, I know it is those marches which are full of poison, bile and hatred, and they make me and I’m sure millions of others very angry.

So, when leading figures in Britain call for the ban on Stop the War and pro-Palestinian marches and demonstrations, what in fact are they opposing? They are opposing the simple and basic fact that these marches and demonstrations are strongly and powerfully criticising the actions and behaviour of the state of Israel, calling for the end of the wars, and the peaceful reconstruction of the affected societies.

Why do they equate criticism of the state of Israel with alleged ‘anti-Semitism’? Surely the automatic equation of Jewish people anywhere and everywhere with the state of Israel is itself deeply anti-Semitic? Do these people not realise the trap they are falling into? Yes, I think they do: they are deliberately trying to equate attacks of Israel with ‘anti-Semitism’ in order to undermine and ultimately neutralise those mass, democratic and vociferous condemnations of Israel.

Of course, it may be pointed out that the majority of people who define themselves as Jewish in Britain have some degree of inherent sympathy and support for both the concept of the state of Israel and its existence. It seems to me that is entirely natural and understandable, given Israel is an explicitly Jewish state, obviously embraces the Jewish religion and culture, and claims to be located in the region of the Holy Land, where the biblical Israelites are said to have lived.

But for me, as for surely most logical, rational people, there is a world of difference between having a degree of sentimental attachment and sympathy for the notion and existence of Israel, and actively endorsing and supporting the murderous wars and destruction being carried out by the actual regime in operation there. Those who do actively support the wars, destruction and genocide of the present state of Israel should surely expect to face the real anger and condemnation of the great majority of decent working people in this country. Israel’s supporters obviously include large numbers of people who are not Jewish, but who actively endorse its extreme rightwing politics and actions and are progressing the interests of western imperialism.

We do not hold Jewish people responsible for the state of Israel. Those supporters of Israel who do face or fear the full wrath of the mass of decent, dignified and democratic working people should be really clear that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact some of them may identify with the Jewish religion, culture or ethnicity.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

YP Scotland

More outrageous shenanigans from the Jeremy Corbyn-Karie Murphy clique heading Your Party over the Scottish seat on the central executive committee vacated by comrade Niall Christie.

Yes, him of Steve Freeman’s utterly delusional petty nationalist Republican Your Party. Instead of remaining in YP till it adopted a programme, Labourite or republican, Niall simply threw in the towel and walked. A pity. I was relishing the prospect of working with him in YP Scotland … and debating with him too.

Using a clause in YP Standing Orders, the Islington clique are avoiding another election by “recalculating” the previous result, “given the proximity of the last election”. So - surprise, surprise - they have awarded Niall’s seat to Jim Monaghan.

This came through a vote by the CEC, who were given a day’s notice to vote. Here’s YP democracy in action.

Given the huge split that has taken place in Scotland, the election should have been rerun and if Jim had any integrity that’s what he would have called for.

At the same time, there should have been a call that Scotland is given two CEC seats, as the regions of England all have.

But Jim has straight away taken up the position and it now ties in neatly with what he expressed way back - that he only joined Your Party through Karie Murphy’s persuasion. Further proof of this is that Craig Murray has just posted that Murphy called him almost a year ago and said she didn’t want an autonomous Scottish party. Instead, Jim Monaghan should be her Scottish organiser.

So once again we see that what Karie wants, Karie gets, and democracy can go hang.

What of Niall and his comrades? Amazingly, they imagine themselves to be Marxists! They seriously believe that when Lenin called for the ‘right of nations to self-determination’, he meant ‘independence’! Can you credit it. The naivity is astounding!

Frankly, that is like saying the right of a husband and wife to divorce is akin to advocating that every couple should divorce. In fact Lenin, like Rosa Luxemburg, advocated working class unity as the overriding principle. In a single state and in a single party too.

Where Niall and his little band of left nats will go next is anyone’s guess. The Scottish Socialist Party is a busted flush. Alba is no more. It dissolved. The same happened to Tommy Sherridan’s Solidarity fan club. There is the thoroughly dubious Alliance to Liberate Scotland and the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement. But the logical course for Scot nats is to embrace the Scottish National Party. Go find a cosy little niche in running Scotland in the interests of Scottish capitalism.

The comrades certainly do not have a clue about the elementary principles of working class struggle, unity, internationalism or socialism.

But, maybe, they are willing to learn and - despite their departure from YP Scotland - maybe they are up for an ‘internationalism versus nationalism’ debate.

We live in hope.

Tam Dean Burn
email

Prostitution

John Smithee’s letter (April 23) pushing for the complete legalisation of prostitution caught me off guard. By the end of it I began to suspect that I had already read it before and, sure enough, it’s a rewrite of a letter from 2022 (August 4) with some of the least temperate language removed.

That version decried “militant feminism” for shutting down “sex venues”, before closing with this eyebrow-raising claim: “All men should have their first sexual experience with an escort - a polite term for a prostitute. By doing so, men would learn how to respect and treat women (in Australia a session in a brothel is often given to men as an 18th birthday present.)”

To start, his contention that legal brothels will reduce rape does not stand up to even the most basic statistical scrutiny. In his own choice example of Australia 136 rapes are reported for every 100,000 people, which is almost 20% worse than the rate in Britain. The burden of providing empirical evidence is clearly in comrade Smithee’s court. I will refute his underlying conceptual argument in more detail.

First of all, he claims: “Sex work is just like being a car mechanic … Mechanics enjoy working on cars and look forward to meeting their clients - some even become friends.” Well, comrade Smithee, mechanics may have enjoyed working on cars when they entered the profession, but the gruelling commitment of spending every single week, rather than the occasional weekend, fixing cars is enough to grind away any passion they may have initially had for the act. As a DIY mechanic myself, I can attest that there is a widespread stereotype of professional mechanics neglecting to maintain their own vehicles. There is a well-known proverb for this phenomenon: “The shoemaker’s children go barefoot.”

This is just one reason why a brothel would be the worst place to “learn how to respect and treat women”. By definition, the women (and apparently now some men) there would not be there if they weren’t receiving payment for services rendered. And paying ‘Johns’ will insist on getting their money’s worth: any prostitute that still enjoys sex enough to insist on more than being selfishly used as an animated sex toy will quickly be pushed aside (or worse) in favour of market competitors that cynically pretend to love this degrading treatment.

None of this needed explaining to the socialist movement of Lenin’s time, which, Leninists take note, universally condemned prostitution as something to be eradicated. Back then prostitution was rampant, and it was the norm for young men to sneak off to brothels to get secret lessons on how to “respect and treat women” in preparation for marriage.

The 1913 novel Comrade Yetta gives us an authentic period view of the social impact of this education: “Men learn their first lessons of sex from [prostitutes] - poor, pallid women who have never known what love was. It doesn’t matter whether a boy goes to them or not. Indirectly, if not directly, he learns their lore. The older boys who tell him about women have learned from them.

“Prostitution is the blackest blot on this civilisation we socialists are trying to overthrow … these women, whom we despise and consistently degrade, are the teachers who instruct our youth in this business of sex. It is the holiest thing in life. Its priestesses are the most polluted class in the community. Not that I blame them. They are victims. But they get their revenge - a horrible revenge.”

The context prompting this quote is how Yetta, expecting “a Great White Sacrifice to Love”, discovered the “mystic, inexpressible joy of sex” with her socialist husband (the sweaty details are not provided). It is worth noting that Comrade Yetta was translated into Russian and printed in 1919, during the most austere early years of the revolution.

Nowadays brothels are far less prevalent than they used to be - for today’s youth, the expectations of what sex should be like are shaped and warped through online porn. Length prevents me from going into details here, but the same objections made to in-person prostitution still apply: instead of two individuals meeting as equals, one person receives payment to submit to a sexual script catering to the selfish and mechanical lust of the other.

Comrade Smithee will surely object that, his praise of capitalist Australia notwithstanding, he was only arguing for socialist prostitution; our socialist government will step in to enact pro-social regulations of a socialised sex industry. My answer to this argument is that a socialist sex industry is an oxymoron: nothing is more inimical to our final goal of free association than an institution based on using money to objectify our fellow humans. All capitalist industry is based on objectification to some extent (‘the customer is always right’, etc), but prostitution presents it in its most naked form. It casts a shadow over all other aspects of society, visible not least in the enormous number of rapes reported each year.

Therefore, after we take power, we should not tolerate prostitution the same way we would tolerate other petty industries like car mechanics. All the largest-scale forms of the sex industry should be shut down: brothels and other ‘sex venues’, porn studios - OnlyFans and so on. As for individual-level operators like Smithee’s “friend”, Suzy, it will be impossible to fully suppress the trade without levels of surveillance and censorship inimical to democracy.

I haven’t studied this subject enough to prescribe exactly how petty prostitution should or should not be criminalised, but we must make it clear that our final goal is to eradicate this inhuman ‘profession’, and promote this message through sex education in schools and elsewhere.

Bill Wright
USA

Blind rage

I saw an online article recently titled ‘Will more warehouses burn?’ (Jacobin April 17). It was about a chap allegedly burning down a 1.2 million-square-foot warehouse “in anger over low pay”.

The warehouse was owned by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and the writer found that between 2015 and 2025 the company had a $21.5 billion net income. Over that same period it spent $22.8 billion on stock buy-backs and dividends - the modern way forward for capital to accumulate - for the benefit of the owners and their top managers. The man charged said, “All you had to do was pay us enough to live. Pay more of the value we bring. Not corporate. Don’t see the shareholders picking up a shift.”

This story reminded me of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, who was fatally shot in Manhattan outside the Hilton Midtown hotel in 2024. The shooter said that it was over “health insurance parasitic practices”, which sounds reasonable. Again, people at the top get incredibly rich, while people at the bottom get shat upon.

And now we have another, failed, attempt to kill Trump. This is not something to advocate, but it is hardly surprising. In the absence of a strong, organised communist party or even strong trade unions, some individuals get frustrated.

We can also see why the ruling class are keen to get rid of juries. In 1969 the late Ted Honderich, who was a Canadian-born British philosopher, wrote a book called Punishment: the supposed justifications, which, as I recall, looked at reasons for punishment and debunked them. So we had retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc, but he wrote that, for the wealthy, punishment was “just deserts”, which was very satisfying to them, as it implied that their own wealth was just deserts as well. Certainly that seems to be the judgement of the billionaires and multi-millionaires that we see in the media. They have what they have because they’ve earned it (not true, of course), and poor people need to work harder. A little bit of charity might be in order - but we mustn’t get carried away.

A few years ago there was much talk about ‘flyover states’: that is, those between the east and west coasts of the US that the rich would fly over with little or no consideration of those beneath. We now have a ‘flyover’ world, I think. The ultra-rich have their private jets and they have multiple homes around the world. Those ‘beneath’ them are of no concern.

Not all capitalists are nasty bastards (though a lot of them are), but capital as such cares nothing for anybody or anything except accumulation. In fact I would guess that for many of the rich they care no more for their employees or their customers that Al Capone did. I’m sure, however, they do recognise that they owe Capone a big debt - always make sure you have the best tax lawyers!

Jim Nelson
email

All change

I’d like to thank the Weekly Worker for its consistent willingness to host debate. Carl Collins’s piece on the ‘No war but the class war’ slogan being a case in point (‘Sloganeering on autopilot’, April 23).

Much of comrade Collins’ argument rests on the support Marx and Engels gave to particular national movements in the 19th century: Hungary in 1848-49, German and Italian unification, Poland, Ireland, the Union cause in the American civil war. The 1869 letter to Engels on Ireland is invoked as more or less decisive. And the article culminates in a defence of Connolly’s strategic orientation in 1916.

My question is this: why does the article not engage with the structural shift that, for the communist left, divides these examples from our own moment? Marx and Engels were writing in capitalism’s ascendant phase, when bourgeois-democratic revolutions could still clear feudal and absolutist debris, expand the productive forces, and create a working class. In that period, particular national movements could plausibly be weighed as progressive. From 1914 onwards, with the entry into the imperialist epoch, no such room for manoeuvre exists. Every ‘liberated’ state has to insert itself into a global hierarchy of capitals already constituted; the 20th century record, from Vietnam to post-colonial Africa, arguably vindicates Luxemburg over Lenin on this point.

If that periodisation is wrong, I would like to see it argued against. But to settle a question posed in 2026 by reaching for Marx on Ireland in 1869, without addressing what changed in between, is surely the move that risks becoming ‘mechanical’.

Sian Grech
email

People’s football

Fan-owned Clapton Community FC men’s team won promotion in dramatic fashion on May 2, overcoming Rayleigh Town 4-2 after extra time in the Eastern Counties League Division One South play-off final at the Old Spotted Dog ground.

Roared on by a diverse and colourful record crowd of more nearly 2,400, Clapton drew first blood early on when David Makisi complemented a driving run by feeding Fred Taylor to cut inside and curl the ball expertly into the top corner.

Clapton were soon in dreamland when James Briggs swung in a wicked free-kick from the right that Julian Austin flashed past the keeper on the volley.

Rayleigh regrouped though and pulled one back from the penalty spot through Dylan Jones after a harsh handball decision against Briggs.

The visitors carried a swing in energy and momentum into the second half but were reduced to 10 men when the referee judged midfielder Rob West to have made a challenge worthy of a straight red card. Despite the setback, Jones pounced amid a scrap in the box to secure a brace and send the match into extra time.

Far from downbeat, the Clapton faithful and players relished the extra 30 minutes of football, feeling like nothing could spoil the sunny carnival atmosphere.

How Raleigh lasted the distance was a testament to their determination and spirit as an injury cut them down to nine players, with all of their subs having been made.

Clapton’s persistence finally told. Before the break, Taylor once again provided the spark, skilfully opening up space on the left flank before crossing for Cameron Gordon to glance home a smart header for 3-2, sending the Old Spotted Dog ground into rapturous jubilation as victory now surely beckoned.

Clapton sealed the result when Gordon turned provider, teeing up Taylor to finish emphatically and ensure a long celebration into the night.

With football increasingly shaped by the distant control of autocratic oligarchs, Clapton’s success is a boon to all football fans who dream of belonging to a club rooted in its community, sustained by its supporters, and driven by the principle that football should belong to the many as a social good, rather than serving capitalists as a commercial price-gouging extraction machine.

This was a powerful vindication of fan-owned football - hard-won, exciting, and shared by everyone who helped build it. Clapton now move up to step 5 in English league football, back to the same level where predecessors Clapton FC competed.

Ted Reese
London

Boycott Aviva

Twelve shareholders disrupted the Aviva annual shareholders meeting on May 6 by blocking access to the boardroom. They were calling on the insurer to stop “propping up companies involved in fossil fuel extraction, the genocide in Gaza and abuse of migrants in detention”.

Protesters condemned the company for underwriting and investing in a number of companies, including Serco, Saudi Aramco and Elbit Systems. Some protesters had to be carried out from the building, while others were escorted away.

Amid the proceedings, Beth Jones from York said to the attendees: “Aviva is investing £2 billion in Israeli weapons companies, bankrolling the slaughter of civilians though companies like Elbit Systems, who market their weapons as battle-tested on Palestinians”.

Our research into the UK insurance market shows that Aviva insures more migrant detention and surveillance contractors than any other company, underwrites oil majors such as Saudi Aramco, and invests billions in fossil fuel and weapons companies.

Our data shows that Aviva:

• Insures border detention companies Serco, G4S and Mears.
• Invests $8 billion in fossil fuel companies, including in Shell and BP.
• Invests $2 billion in weapons companies complicit in the genocide in Gaza.

Aviva’s client, Serco, runs four ‘immigration removal centres’, including the infamous Yarl’s Wood, as well as the UK’s GPS tagging programme for migrants and asylum-seekers, subjecting them to 24/7 surveillance. In this way Aviva is enabling companies to profiteer from the abuse of migrants. Private companies are raking in millions, while subjecting people fleeing war and persecution to cruel and dangerous conditions.

A 2025 government review admitted private providers made “record profits” amid “profiteering” accusations, yet conditions remain appalling - overcrowding, infestations and staff mistreatment. Workers at Serco-run Liverpool hotels have described “institutional abuse” there.

Other shareholders disrupted the AGM to press Aviva on their ongoing support for fossil fuel companies. One shareholder called out Aviva’s investments in ExxonMobil, “which ran a decades-long campaign of climate denial and misinformation that has led to inaction and devastating impacts on communities across the world”.

Aviva likes to present itself as an ethical business, but, when you look at the companies it supports, that turns out to be a sham. We are calling on Aviva to be stripped of its ethical accreditations and for organisation across the UK to boycott their products and services until that changes.

Andrew Taylor
Boycott Bloody Insurance