What's your sexuality? Gay, straight, bi, ace?
That's a question that most people would have little difficulty in answering - most people can comfortably put themselves in one category or another. But what I've been wondering is, what do those labels actually mean?
On the face of it, it's pretty simple. A straight man is attracted to women, a straight woman is atracted to men, and so on. But what do we mean when we say "I am atracted to men" or "I am attracted to women"? Gender, after all, is neither a personality trait nor a physical characteristic; seeing as attraction is based on physical appearance and personality, gender should logically be irrelevant. Certainly genitals can be a factor - there are many men, women and non-binary people who would not want to have sex with someone who had a penis, just as there are many who would only want to have sex with someone if they had a penis. But that doesn't say anything about whether they're gay or straight - plenty of women and nonbinary people have dicks, and plenty of men don;t.
Let me give you an example. Let's say you're on a date with Scarlett Johansson (for simplicity's sake, I'm assuming you're atracted to women - feel free to substitute Denzel Washington or whoever). Things are going well - you think there's a pretty good chance you'll end up in bed. Then, near the end of the evening, she makes a confession - she's a man. Her physical apearance is exactly the same as it is now; nothing is different whatsoever from how you've imagined her. All that's changed are her pronouns. Do you still find him atractive? My guess is you would.
So, to return to my earlier point - what does that mean for your sexuality? Maybe this is just because I'm bi and I don't get how monosexuals work, but does gender really have any impact on sexuality at all? And if not, isn't the language we use to talk about sexuality hopelessly inadequate?
Tuesday 22 September 2015
Sunday 13 September 2015
Where Now for the Left?
He did it - Corbyn won the Labour leadership contest. For the first time in more than twenty years we have a Labour party led by a genuine socialist. So the question that everyone's asking is this: what now? We have a genuine left-wing opposition, with huge popular support, so what exactly do we do?
Firstly, and most importantly, we need to avoid being sucked into the electoral trap again. We need to remember that, even though Corbyn seems to be a genuinely committed, genuinely conscientious man, he cannot fix the problem, because capitalism is the problem, and you cannot abolish capitalism through the ballot box. Every time someone has tried to do so, one of three things has happened:
1. They've slipped into reformism
2. They've been voted out
3. They've been crushed by the capitalist class
The first is likely what will happen with Corbyn. I have no doubt that he genuinely wants to build socialism, but in order to get anywhere in politics, you have to make serious compromises. First, you say to yourself "Ok, we need socialism, but that's not achievable just yet. For now, let's focus on reversing the cuts". Then, in order to build support for that transitional demand, you make yourself appear more and more moderate in order to appeal to a wider section of the electorate, which will involve dropping more radical policies, making deals, and appeasing the ruling class. You decide to tone down the rhetoric and make more "reasonable" demands, because you have to keep your career going - after all, if you're not in government, you can't do anything. Once a politician is in power, their priorities shift - they become primarily concerned with holding on to that power, not because they are power-hungry or selfish, but because they become convinced that they need that power to change things for the better, and so any compromise is justified so long as it helps them keep it. Even great figures like Fidel Castro and Clement Attlee took on a downright reactionary role when the masses were moving faster than they were. Attlee sent in troops to break strikes, Fidel suppressed labour unions, and Corbyn is no more radical than either of them.
Less likely is the third option - that Corbyn will stay true to his radical roots, introduce reforms that will genuinely pave the way for socialism, and then be met with the full force of the global ruling class. That's what happened to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela - he stood up for the poor, the disadvantaged, the workers, and the capitalists came down on him like a ton of bricks. That's the problem of trying to tax your way into socialism - it leaves property in the hands of the big capitalists, who can simply take their business elsewhere. Democratic socialists want to stop paying the Danegeld without getting rid of the Dane, a strategy that works about as well as any refusal to pay protection money. In order to prevent this occurring, we need to organise on the lowest level and directly take the property of the capitalist class into our (the workers') hands - that would require direct action, which would inevitably bring us into conflict with the police and, therefore, the government.
This is why the capitalist state can never be on the same side as the workers - by its very nature, any government in our current system has to play by the rules, and the rules are designed so that the boss always wins.
Which brings me back to my earlier question - what do we do now? Well, first of all, don't base your revolutionary strategy on a blog post by a politically semi-literate twenty-three-year-old. But that aside, here's my very general, very provisional strategy. First, we need to capitalise on the Corbyn phenomenon - there are thousands of people out there who know something's rotten in Denmark, and who want to change things. They represent a vast number of potential allies, so long as we can reach out and convince them of our position. Propaganda and mass work are always vital, and will be especially so in the coming years.
Second, we need achievable short-term goals. Let's face it, we're not going to be storming parliament any time soon, and in the meantime we need to be able to show people concrete gains, or they'll have no reason to trust us or get involved with us. This could be something as simple as organising events to raise funds or donations for a cause - the current refugee crisis is a good example of where we should be really getting involved. Whatever we can do - and that will differ depending on different people's capabilities - we should, whether it's stopping evictions, union organising, helping people avoid workfare or whatever. Thirdly, we need to build a mass support base by uniting existing left organisations - we mustn't be sectarian. Whether someone's a Maoist, an anarchist or a liberal doesn't matter, so much as whether they're willing to fight capitalism and austerity. We need numbers, and we need to convince people that the solution to their problems lies outside parliamentary politics.
Firstly, and most importantly, we need to avoid being sucked into the electoral trap again. We need to remember that, even though Corbyn seems to be a genuinely committed, genuinely conscientious man, he cannot fix the problem, because capitalism is the problem, and you cannot abolish capitalism through the ballot box. Every time someone has tried to do so, one of three things has happened:
1. They've slipped into reformism
2. They've been voted out
3. They've been crushed by the capitalist class
The first is likely what will happen with Corbyn. I have no doubt that he genuinely wants to build socialism, but in order to get anywhere in politics, you have to make serious compromises. First, you say to yourself "Ok, we need socialism, but that's not achievable just yet. For now, let's focus on reversing the cuts". Then, in order to build support for that transitional demand, you make yourself appear more and more moderate in order to appeal to a wider section of the electorate, which will involve dropping more radical policies, making deals, and appeasing the ruling class. You decide to tone down the rhetoric and make more "reasonable" demands, because you have to keep your career going - after all, if you're not in government, you can't do anything. Once a politician is in power, their priorities shift - they become primarily concerned with holding on to that power, not because they are power-hungry or selfish, but because they become convinced that they need that power to change things for the better, and so any compromise is justified so long as it helps them keep it. Even great figures like Fidel Castro and Clement Attlee took on a downright reactionary role when the masses were moving faster than they were. Attlee sent in troops to break strikes, Fidel suppressed labour unions, and Corbyn is no more radical than either of them.
Less likely is the third option - that Corbyn will stay true to his radical roots, introduce reforms that will genuinely pave the way for socialism, and then be met with the full force of the global ruling class. That's what happened to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela - he stood up for the poor, the disadvantaged, the workers, and the capitalists came down on him like a ton of bricks. That's the problem of trying to tax your way into socialism - it leaves property in the hands of the big capitalists, who can simply take their business elsewhere. Democratic socialists want to stop paying the Danegeld without getting rid of the Dane, a strategy that works about as well as any refusal to pay protection money. In order to prevent this occurring, we need to organise on the lowest level and directly take the property of the capitalist class into our (the workers') hands - that would require direct action, which would inevitably bring us into conflict with the police and, therefore, the government.
This is why the capitalist state can never be on the same side as the workers - by its very nature, any government in our current system has to play by the rules, and the rules are designed so that the boss always wins.
Which brings me back to my earlier question - what do we do now? Well, first of all, don't base your revolutionary strategy on a blog post by a politically semi-literate twenty-three-year-old. But that aside, here's my very general, very provisional strategy. First, we need to capitalise on the Corbyn phenomenon - there are thousands of people out there who know something's rotten in Denmark, and who want to change things. They represent a vast number of potential allies, so long as we can reach out and convince them of our position. Propaganda and mass work are always vital, and will be especially so in the coming years.
Second, we need achievable short-term goals. Let's face it, we're not going to be storming parliament any time soon, and in the meantime we need to be able to show people concrete gains, or they'll have no reason to trust us or get involved with us. This could be something as simple as organising events to raise funds or donations for a cause - the current refugee crisis is a good example of where we should be really getting involved. Whatever we can do - and that will differ depending on different people's capabilities - we should, whether it's stopping evictions, union organising, helping people avoid workfare or whatever. Thirdly, we need to build a mass support base by uniting existing left organisations - we mustn't be sectarian. Whether someone's a Maoist, an anarchist or a liberal doesn't matter, so much as whether they're willing to fight capitalism and austerity. We need numbers, and we need to convince people that the solution to their problems lies outside parliamentary politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)