PROSTITUTION, EXPLOITATION AND CAPITALISM

From Class Struggle 51 July-August 2003
The Prostitution Act Reform Bill was passed into law on the 27^th June 2003 by the very narrow margin of one vote.Here we put a communist perspective on this issue and explain why we give critical support to this new law.

A very short history of sex work

This much-debated piece of legislation, though long overdue, was only passed because a Muslim MP Ashraf Chaudhary could not in good conscience vote either for or against it and so abstained.

For this decision he has been pilloried by many as either indecisive, a traitor to Islam or bowing to pressure from his party leader. Asked on the night why he had followed this course of action he responded with the statement that though he could not for religious reasons vote for the Bill, he could not vote against it as it contained some important protections for workers.

Chaudhary was realistic enough to know that just because of his moral objections to prostitution, it was not going to go away. Therefore better to improve the law to make life safer for prostitutes than persecute them for what is a longstanding social practice.

Chaudhary is right. Prostitution has existed for as long as the patriarchal family as more or less ‘deviant’ sex outside marriage. The law and policing practices governing prostitution are the result of social attitudes that recognise that paying for sex outside marriage is widespread, but at the same time should not be ‘normalised’ as no different to marital sex. Why not?

In the patriarchal family the male head of the household was boss and his sons inherited his property.Marital sex was necessary to make sure that his sons were legitimate heirs. Women were paid for their sexual services by their upkeep and were also expected to be the moral champions of monogamy. Prostitution was tolerated because it fulfilled the need for sex outside marriage without threatening to destroy the patriarchal household.

Under capitalism this changed. The working class had no property to pass down to its sons. Instead the working class family became a ‘domestic factory’ for making babies to feed the bosses’ factories. To ensure that dad stayed around to feed the family production line, the ruling class tried to enact legislation to restrict extramarital sex. They also promoted the moralising myths that stigmatised prostitutes as deviants while their mainly male clients usually escaped the law.

Making up Morals

Those who opposed the Bill promoted lots of half-truths and untruths about the Bill and prostitution. They failed and the new Act will remove many of the negative effects of the old laws and in doing so will in time help to dispel some of the lies and myths that surround prostitution.

There have been myths perpetrated within New Zealand for many years about prostitution, most of which have come from the Church, the ‘moral’ right or the Radical Feminist movement These myths include the claim that prostitution was at one time illegal in New Zealand. It has never been illegal. Pimping, brothel keeping, living off the earnings and soliciting on the other hand are, and have been ever since the 19^th century. The obvious effect of these laws is to penalise the prostitute (and the pimp) but not the client.

The main aim and force of the Act is to remove these ‘crimes’ from the Statute books, as the present situation marginalizes the prostitutes and their families.It makes them and their families not only into criminals but also into easy targets for gangs and those who would exploit them for profit.

Job satisfaction for profits

The second myth that the moralists like to perpetrate is that no woman would willingly choose to be a prostitute. But nor do other workers choose freely to work for wages. The truth is that no worker is free to choose under capitalism, as the alternative is starvation or living in an oppressive relationship. Some prostitutes claim that they are not exploited or abused, but are professionals. So do many other workers take a pride in their job. Like the prostitute who does not see that extramarital sex props up the bourgeois family, they also fail to see that their labour produces profits for the bosses and props up capitalism.

Many women ‘try’ prostitution for economic reasons but the vast majority of these women very quickly find that it is not for them. In other words they look for a better job. It is neither ‘easy’ money nor is it morally debasing to the women who choose it as their profession. In that sense prostitution is service that people enter to earn a living. The truth is that it is capitalism and the patriarchal family that create prostitution that are immoral, not the actions of the prostitute or the client.

Pimps stand over tactics

Under the existing legislation parlour owners have more power over their workers than any other group of “bosses”. Though the fiction was maintained that these women were private contractors they were required to work rosters that did not necessarily take into account personal circumstances or commitments.When they refused to do impossible shifts or missed shifts, they were fined (these fines could range from $10 to $50 or more per shift missed). In one case we know of a worker fined (docked) over $500 when she failed to show up for a shift even though she was ill and had rung to inform the “boss” that she would not be in.

Women in parlours were often required to go with any man that chose them and were unable to refuse if they wished to continue to work in that establishment. This was illegal under existing legislation (it was illegal to force or coerce any person to take part in a sexual activity) but because of their marginalized position women could not complain. Under the new law this form of coercion carries with it a sentence of up to seven years in prison.

The law change has made it possible for these women to legally setup their own “houses” or “brothels” without the stand over tactics of the “boss”.There was even a group of parlour owners who opposed the law change for this very reason.As the law stood if a woman had any criminal conviction, and in particular a drug conviction, she was not permitted to work in a parlour and these were often the women who ended up working on the streets.These are the most vulnerable of workers in the industry and the law change will allow them to move off the streets into brothels or to rent a room from which they can work, though many may choose not to change the way that they currently work.

Brothels to pay tax, GST and ACC

This bill now brings parlours/brothels under the same legal restraints as other employers/businesses thus offering a modicum of protection to the workers through the need for these “bosses” to comply with the minimum standards set down by ACC and OSH for the workplace to be safe.So while revenue collection may well be one of the objectives of the bill it is not the only objective, as was portrayed by some of those who opposed it.

Already most parlours (at least in Auckland) require that they know the woman’s real name – this is verified by photo ID and their real addresses, and these are kept on record.Some even require IRD numbers, therefore most of the women who work in the massage parlours are already known to and in contact with the IRD, as are many of the women who work privately.In some towns and cities in New Zealand women are even required to register with the police if they wish to work there, Dunedin for example.

Radical liberal hypocrisy

So called ‘moral’ grounds were not valid reasons for those on the left to have opposed this bill.It is no good claiming that capitalism must be overthrown to get rid of prostitution, but meanwhile doing nothing to help prostitutes to organise and improve their conditions while we prepare for the revolution. The removal of the blatant oppression of women who work in this profession by the parlour owners, the ”bosses” and those who rent apartments with rent plus ‘extra use’ charges were very valid reasons to critically support the Bill.These are the capitalists that profit from the present situation and they are aided by those who choose to use moral grounds for their objections.

It is also wrong for some opponents of this bill to disguise their real agendas behind a professed concern about the conditions and pay of working women. Even if these views are sincerely held, prostitutes are also working women and to use them and their occupation in this manner is to debase their value as women and as human beings, and to treat them as commodities in just the same way as the parlour “bosses” do.

Defeating this bill would have done nothing to assist or alleviate the inequality of wages paid to women workers, nor would it have brought about pay equity or have made any progressive political change to the capitalist system in New Zealand.It would only have allowed the blatant exploitation to continue.

On the other hand, giving critical support for this Bill does not mean that we endorsed prostitution, any more than fighting for wage increases means we endorse wage exploitation. On the contrary capitalism will never by overthrown unless the workers mobilise to demand what they need now to the point where they are strong enough to take it themselves! Prostitutes now will have the same legal rights as other workers to organise and bring about reforms that can hasten the end of the patriarchal family and capitalism.

Crime and drugs red herrings

Another myth is that prostitution causes crime. But the problems associated with drug dependency, mental illness, and suicide cannot be laid “at the door” of prostitution as often these problems are pre-existing.These are problems brought about by the capitalist system and are not the product of any one industry.As figures for the number of women working in the industry are only estimates and often only take into account street walkers or at best include parlour workers, it is impossible to state that statistically this is a more dangerous occupation than many others, including nursing, being a doctor or any other high stress employment.

Another argument raised to prevent the passage of the Bill was that of very young persons taking part in paid sexual activities. Under the old law a man had as a defense the belief that the woman/girl was of the age of consent (this was 16 except if she was working in a massage parlour where the minimum age was 18). This has now changed.All sex workers now have to be of the minimum age of 18 and the onus is on the client to be certain of this.

As for the frequency of assaults and murder, this is higher for streetwalkers than others in the industry as these workers are by far the most vulnerable.This Act can help them to be safer and to move off the streets if that is what they want.But the figures for both assault and murder of women still show that it is women who choose to get out of abusive relationships that are at the greatest risk of both being assaulted and murdered, not prostitutes.

All these myths and misconceptions aside, the workers in the sex industry now have the chance to bring to themselves the greatest protection available to workers everywhere: they are now in the position to either form their own union or to join an existing union and achieve the strength of collective negotiating both for conditions of work and payment.Like the workers in any other industry, this will give them the potential to have control over their labour and remove it from the bosses’ sole discretion. They will not need to rely upon the law and the law enforcement agencies that will often fail to administer the law. They can organise themselves to fight for and defend their rights. And in that they deserve the support of all workers.

All out for the sexual revolution

As Marxists we recognise that prostitution today is the product of capitalism and patriarchy and will not go away until we abolish both. Meanwhile capitalism requires us to sell our labour to survive, and the selling of sexual services is also necessary for the reproduction of bourgeois families and capitalist society. For some these services are performed inside bourgeois marital-type relationships as partners. For others, these services are performed outside the family as prostitutes.

Both services perform a necessary function to capitalism and their providers deserve the same protections as other workers and the same respect.The changes now enacted in the Prostitution Reform Act mark an important step towards equality of opportunity and employment rights for sex workers outside the family who will now be better organised to meet the oppressive tactics of their bosses and the ruling class and pave the way not only for the sexual revolution but for the socialist revolution!

THE HYPOCRISY OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

What do the following state actions have in common?

The Commissioner for children calls for an inquiry into child prostitution.

Govt sets up the Police Complaints Authority to investigate complaints against the police.

Govt passes a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of people.

Govt funds organisations that go into schools to warn our young people about the dangers of drugs.

Govt passes a law to prosecute people who have sex with children overseas.

All of the above are examples of the state legislating for morality to supposedly ban or overcome the causes of antisocial behaviour and establish and defend social or political rights – otherwise known as ‘political correctness’.

The reality is that such acts of state moralism are more often than not hollow and meaningless and do nothing to change and improve our lives and conditions. In fact, they are often worse than doing nothing at all since they give us the impression that we have achieved something and that our lives will somehow be enriched by these acts. Meanwhile they provide are a cover for the immorality of capitalist society.

Of course, we do not oppose official state actions in defence of individual and social rights as the far right Libertarianz do. They think that these rights automatically occur in the marketplace, and do not need to be defended by any political action.

We on the other hand know that the state supports a system that oppresses workers and suppresses their rights so that they can be exploited. So we have no illusions that the state can be part of the solution when it is part of the problem.

We think that such rights can only be defended by the working class because it has an interest in defending these rights to enable it to overthrow the root cause of oppression, capitalist society.

Let’s take a tour through the above examples of official political correctness and demythologise them.

1. Child Prostitution

Due to the media highlighting of a couple of incidents recently the commissioner for children, Roger McClay, has called for an investigation into the rise of child prostitution. The desired outcome will be taking measures to combat the rise in child prostitution.

What rank hypocrisy! Roger McClay was a member of a National Government that slashed benefits, introduced the Employment Contracts Act and introduced market rents for State Housing tenants. Those are just three examples of the sorts of right wing policies that McClay and his mates introduced in the 90s that had a devastating impact on the lives of working people. Poverty increased, people couldn’t afford to pay their rent, and making ends meet has continued to be a daily struggle for thousands of New Zealanders.

The impact has inevitably filtered through to the young of this country, whose employment futures continue to be bleak. If child prostitution is on the increase then the inquiry McClay wants should point the finger right back at the perpetrators of poverty which leads to young people selling themselves for sex. The politicians like McClay and their Big business friends who wanted to have tax cuts and legislation that enabled them to better exploit their workers. That’s where the blame lies.

Of course, that’s not going to happen, such an inquiry will probably recommend more funding for the police and other symbolic actions designed to make us feel like that something is being done. The reality is nothing will change, at least for the better. As the gap between rich and poor grows, child prostitution will continue to grow.

2. Police Complaints Authority

The Labour Government of 1984-90 introduced The Police Complaints Authority to oversee complaints against the Police. The idea was that the Authority would be independent and would be able to investigate complaints against the police in an impartial way. One of the incidents that gave rise to this was the battening of the "Clowns" during the Springbok Tour of 1981. In the end the "Clowns" had to resort to civil action to get any sort of justice.

Yet, the Police Complaints Authority has been an utter failure on just about every front! Complaints are mainly investigated by other policeman, sometimes not even removed from the complaint. One notable case involved a policeman investigating a complaint about a search on which he was present. Currently the PCA has not yet reported on the Police Inquiry which cleared the killer of Steven Wallace more than a year after his death (see separate story).

The findings of the Authority are almost always in favour of the police and when they aren’t the penalties dished out to errant policemen and women are little more than a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket. Anti-crime Minister Phil Goff recently revamped the PCA to replace police investigators with retired police investigators as if this will make it more ‘independent’ of the Police.

Many lawyers now tell their clients not to bother pursuing a complaint to the authority. There have even been cases where people have again had to resort to legal action to get a decent resolution. The irony of this is that it is exactly what the PCA was supposed to put an end to.

3. The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights was passed by The Labour Government of 1984-90. It was intended to enshrine the basic rights of people from political interference.

Yet, since 1984 more and more rights have been lost by people in this country despite the Bill of Rights. The Bill of rights has become a hollow meaningless bit of paper. Because it is not entrenched (needing a two third majority of Parliament to overturn it) other legislation can easy override it. Paul Swain is busy introducing some of the most draconian spying legislation that will give wide sweeping powers to the Police and Intelligence agencies to not only spy on data transfer but actually enter into people’s computers and retrieve information.

For the police it is business is usual. "What’s the Bill of Rights?" as far as they are concerned, it has made little or no difference to how they behave. They continue to trample on the rights of working people everyday.

An example of this is picketing where the right won by workers to picket against scabs taking their jobs is now outlawed by the ERA. This demonstrate that the state is interested in defending citizen rights only it they don’t interfere with the bosses’ right to make profits.

True, there have been a few victories attributed to the Bill of Rights, such as overturning some police practices or bureaucratic blunders, but they are few and far between, and occur more by accident than design.

The flip side of these victories is that they result in a reactionary cry from people like Greg O’Connor of the Police Association that we need to change the law to give more power to policemen! More power to the forces of state oppression, just what working people need!

Frighteningly, these suggestions fall on receptive ears in the Government such as the great right wing populist, Phil Goff, the supposed minister of Justice. The Bill of Rights can be overruled by any legislation to restrict rights.

A case of the above contempt for The Bill of Rights was the reaction to the Court of Appeal ruling that Internal Affairs had breached the Bill or Rights in ruling certain publications as indecent that dealt with the subject of paedophilia in a sympathetic way.

You couldn’t move for people clambering over each other to say what a travesty this was, including the media who went along for the ride. The fact was that people didn’t bother to read the court’s decision or ask what it was that had been ruled as not indecent. It wasn’t even child pornography. But why let the facts get in the way of truth.

4 Drug Education

The Government funds organisations like FADE to go into schools to warn children about the dangers of drugs promoting these programmes as if they will make a difference.

Who are they kidding! More and more young people are experimenting with drugs at younger and younger ages. Such drug education is not only a waste of time and money it is misleading. Studies done in the United States show that drug use is continuing to rise amongst young people despite these types of programmes, which are well established there.

The money could be spent, giving young people a better understanding of ALL drugs and encouraging them to use them more carefully, for example not mixing certain types of drugs because of the effect. But to do this we would have to own up to reality that our young people are taking drugs because they are alienated from the dull routine of capitalist life and that most drugs are pushed to make profits. So the state has to continue to pretend that the problem is one of ‘youth’ and only a certain class of drugs and that it can "win the war on drugs."

For example while this anti-drug hysteria is going on, the major legal drug has never had it so good as far as the law goes. Young people are exposed to Television advertising, lower drinking ages and alcohol in supermarkets. No wonder the Business Round Table called for the drinking age to be lowered to 16! It is also NOT an offence to give your children alcohol, regardless of what age they are.

5. Child sex tourism

Like many countries, NZ has passed a law that people can be prosecuted for having sex with children in other countries. This law is designed to curb the so-called "sex tourist" from going to countries like Thailand and having sex with children.

Yet so far not one person has been prosecuted under this law! The reality is that even where prosecutions have occurred in other countries, they have been few and far between. The task of presenting evidence and getting witnesses to such a trial are fraught with difficulties which would be evident to anyone with half a brain.

This sort of legislation is typical of the sort of hypocritical "feel-good" legislation popular these days. Such legislation changes nothing and achieves little for young people in countries such as Thailand. In these countries the authorities themselves often turn a blind eye to child prostitution or accept bribes in exchange for doing nothing.

More importantly, nothing will change in countries such as Thailand where poverty and child exploitation go hand and hand. If we were serious about dealing with child exploitation we would look at the root cause, the capitalist system and do something about that. But that would mean real changes and not meaningless gestures would have to happen.

A good start would be to help fund young people’s organisations that aim to unionise youth and fight oppression on every front. Such organisations do exist, but suffer from a lack of support and recognition by the media. In Pakistan young people have started to organise against bonded labour. Last year a 12-year boy who was a leader in the movement and himself a victim of bonded labour was murdered. His assassin has yet to be caught by a police force unwilling to pursue the case.

The case was never carried by the media. It has only ever been highlighted by Amnesty International. Perhaps a 12-year-old victim of bonded labour isn’t as newsworthy or juicy as a child prostitute story. And yet, this young person was trying to do something to change the system that gives rise to such inequalities.

It is the duty of working people everywhere to reject short term, opportunistic approaches to the problems legislated by the state and look at the broader picture.

Exploitation and the disillusionment of young people are a direct result of the capitalist system. Until we deal with that there can be no real progress at dealing with the problems that we face. We must challenge the hypocrisy of politically correct moralism wherever we see it and use it as an opportunity to put forward a programme that will bring real, not imaginary change.

For Our morals not theirs!

From Class Struggle No 39 June-July 2001

ON PORNOGRAPHY

Dear Class Struggle,

I have concerns about the views expressed by J.L. and the comments by Class Struggle in the November issue. I think pornography needs to be seen as systematic abuse rather than ‘freedom of speech’. I agree that we need to think very carefully about the issue, which is why I don’t support panic-driven opposition to all state interventions.

Pornography is a billion dollar industry that systematically promotes the sexualised subordination and commodification of women. Along with rape and battery, incest and prostitution it is part of a system of terror directed against women.

Pornographic films use real women and real women’s bodies. The women being filmed suffer real abuses. The language of assent that women are made to use in the films is part of the forced sex and humiliation they suffer.

Pornography prevents the freedom of speech of women. It silences our dissent and stops our self-determined sexual expression. It promotes the lie that women actually like to be hurt, raped and degraded.

"The women say the pimp’s words; which is worse then silence. The silence of the women not in the picture…hurt but silent, used but silent, is staggering in how deep and wide it goes." (Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p268)

Most women filmed in pornography are coerced: either by extreme economic vulnerability, or by a conditioning to powerlessness caused by previous rapes or childhood sexual abuse, or even by physical coercion (ie rape).The pornography is then used to encourage further rapes, sexual abuse and violence towards women and children.

Pornography is also used as training manuals for prostitutes. In turn, may prostitutes become rape victims, the rape sometimes being filmed to be used as further pornography (with the threat of blackmail if they were to report it.)

The billion-dollar industry of prostitution involves the international trafficking and slavery of women and girls. Linked to this, economically and culturally, is the mass of pornographic material being distributed on the internet. What does this say about the status of women in the world? What does this say about the attitudes of men who consume it.

Women, or men, who have campaigned against these abuses are not engaged in ‘bourgeois moral posturing’, any morethan those who have campaigned against abuses of workers in factories or against slavery itself. Indeed a woman in the sex industry is an extreme example of a worker with only her "skin to sell" as Marx has described all workers. That is, if she isn’t a slave. Marx has pointed out how in Capitalism the workers’ pain becomes the capitalists’ pleasure and wealth. Similarly, in pornography, the woman’s pain becomes the pimp’s wealth and the pornography consumer’s pleasure.

But it is not only those directly employed in the work who are hurt by pornography. All women are hurt and controlled by it.

Andrea Dworkin (ibid p 246) says that "stopping pornogaphers and pornography is not censorship… [because]…pornographers are more like the police in police states then they are like the writers in police states…Intervening in a system of terror where it is vulnerable to public scruting is not censorship; it is the system of terror that stops speech and creates abuse and despair."

Any small concessions we have gained from the state to limit pornography are human-workers-women’s-children’s rights which should be supported by Communists.

In addition I would like to see the socialist movement promote the idea by that any sexual and violent abuse of women and children by workers is a betrayal of the working class; just as scabbing or stealing off each other is seen to be.

The state’s abuse of anti-pornography laws to persecute minorities such as gays is a real concern, and needs to be opposed, but I’m not convinced that opposing all pornography laws is the answer.

One way to stop the abuse of anti-pornography laws is to promote a clear legal definition of pornography. Anrea Dworkin defines it as "The graphic sexually explicit subordination of women" plus at least one other factor from a list of specific abuses. (ibid p264). Erotic material that does not do this could not then be prosecuted.

Using this definition, I’m not sure that Madonna’s work would be pornographic. Whilst she does seem to exploit herself as a sexual object, she also comes across as a sexual subject, and I have never seen her looking sunbordinated.

I don’t think we have a moral panic about pornography. I think we have a kind of new-right liberalism where anything goes, and every human trait can be commodified.

Recently there has been an upswing in neo-nazi aattacks on immigrants and foreigners in Germany. This is directly related to the freedom of these groups to promote their views and activities on the internet (The Guardian Nov 30-Dec 6). On the other hand, the internet has made it possible for the left to communicate and organise internationally.

I appreciate the very real concerns of Class Struggle that if controls on access to pornography on the internet were put in place, the technology could be extended to censor the left.

But I don’t think we should unthinkingly promote a blanket policy of ‘freedom from state controls" including lifting the controls on pornography that we already have now, at the expense of the human rights of women and children.

Yours etc J.A.

Class Struggle responds,

Dear J.A.

Thanks for your letter and your comments on our last issue. We hope that we can answer your concerns.

Perhaps we can agree that our opposition to state controls on pornography does not mean we accept pornography. In fact we see pornography to be an extension of the oppressive relations in the bourgeois family and of private property which we want to abolish. This ‘bourgeois moralists’ will never do. They will keep alive the very causes of pornography.

It is the working class that can and must end pornography. That is why we’re against any form of state controls, internet, or street level. The state is dedicated to the defence of private property and the bourgeois family. This can be seen clearly from the fact that its ‘laws’ cannot and do not protect women, children and gay men from sexual abuse - whether individuals ‘consent’ or not.

Dworkin’s definition is just another attempt to draw a line between ‘acceptable’ abuse and ‘unacceptable’ abuse, which the state would then police. This sows illusions in the state being able to end the oppression of women. Her argument that censoring pornography is OK because the pornographers are the ‘police’ is really dangerous because it masks the power of the state police to repress working class resistance to sexual abuse and fascism (they are strongly related). Pornographers are not police they are scumbag capitalists.

This clears the way for communists to oppose state controls (including against fascists) and in doing so to makes it possible to organise the working class to ‘police’ sexual abuse (and fascists) ourselves. Meanwhile, so long as the bourgeois family and private property exist there will be ‘sexworkers’ who are driven to sell their ‘skins’ to survive. We must support their legal right to do so, and organise support against all sexual violence as well as all other forms of violence against members of our class. In doing so we build workers power, not the bosses’state power, and open the way to socialism.

From Class Struggle No 36 December-January 2001