💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › solidarity-federation-equality-or-liberation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:59:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Equality or liberation?
Author: Solidarity Federation
Date: Summer 1999
Language: en
Topics: equality, liberation, discrimination, Direct Action Magazine
Source: Retrieved on April 7, 2005 from https://web.archive.org/web/20050407003451/http://www.directa.force9.co.uk/archive/da11-features.htm
Notes: Published in Direct Action #11 — Summer 1999.

Solidarity Federation

Equality or liberation?

Discrimination conveniently divides us so the real source of

exploitation, bosses over us, can continue.

Equality initiatives haven’t worked; it’s time for more serious

measures.

The traditional Left viewpoint on issues such as racism, sexism and

homophobia is that they divide the working class, and therefore we must

oppose them so that we can all unite and get on with the real business

of fighting the bosses. It assumes that prejudices are simply encouraged

among the working class by the ruling class in order to divide us, and

that by emphasising our common (economic) interests as workers we can

unite and consign them to history.

Reality is more difficult. For a start, oppression is wrong not because

it is divisive, but because it is oppressive. For example, many black

people resent the dismissal of racism as “divisive” by the traditional

Left. If I were to tell my fellow workers that unity on economic issues

will make discrimination go away, they will rightly dismiss me as

clueless. Oppression is not simply economic; it is at the heart of the

problem, but other forms of discrimination are also directly oppressive.

The most visible means of discrimination — ostracism, verbal abuse,

harassment, violence — are those that working class bigots use. They are

easy to identify, and can be readily condemned and organised against.

Unless, that is, you are the police, in which case feigned ignorance is

more likely than either identifying or doing anything about it.

However, most people are not discriminated against by relatively

powerless bigots, but by institutions, and by powerful, respectable

individuals and groups within them. This is not some conspiracy theory

or other; look no further than the police as just one example among many

of institutionalised discrimination.

The response to discrimination must operate at different levels — just

as the threat does. As well as working for unity on economic issues, we

all need to combat prejudice within the working class directly. In

addition, we need to expose and oppose the root of discrimination at an

institutional level — again, not just in economic boss-worker terms, but

in its own right.

ignorance isn’t bliss

Where discrimination is unintentional, lack of conscious intent does not

make it any less oppressive. Institutional discrimination creates an

environment where those who seek to discriminate can flourish. We should

be wary of the “no fault” approach. Institutional, legal and economic

discrimination is rooted in the dominant culture — the culture of the

capitalist class. Of course, this does not mean discrimination was

invented by capitalism. Many aspects predate capitalism, but they have

proved useful to capitalism, and so have become integrated into its

ideology.

In multi-racial Britain, a person is assumed to be English, white, male,

middle class, Christian, able-bodied and overtly heterosexual. Anyone

different has to argue or fight to get their perspectives or needs

recognised. To do so is to be accused of demanding “special rights”, and

of being divisive by raising issues ignored by those not directly

affected. Some discrimination is active, e.g. discriminatory gay sex

offences; other discrimination is passive, e.g. not allowing same-sex

couples access to the privileges of marriage.

As the whole world now knows, the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report forced

Metropolitan Police (Met) Commissioner Paul Condon to recognise/admit

that institutionalised racism exists in the Met. But there was an

obvious omission from the media coverage. What was established was the

link between the role of the police in dealing with black people as

suspects and criminals and their inability to see them as anything else.

However, what was ignored was the Met’s role in policing group-specific

immigration, the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the masses of other

legislation aimed at specific communities on the basis of their colour,

orientation, religion, etc.

more than skin deep

The police (and come to that, benefits, housing and social services

departments) are about social control. Their operations select targets

on the assumption that particular groups are the primary (or sole)

perpetrators of some offence — black youths for mugging, West Africans

for fraud, etc. This is “legitimate policing”, and the assumption that

Stephen Lawrence’s murder was the result of criminal activity on his

part is an example of its effects.

Reform of the police is supposed to separate the causes of

discrimination from their effects, without actually removing those

causes. For example, Condon has not apologised for Operation Eagle Eye,

the recent anti-mugging drive explicitly targeted at black youth, yet he

is talking about coppers seeing black youths as people, not just

criminals. No wonder representatives of the Met’s rank-and-file are

confused and angry!

Failure to take hate crime seriously is inextricably linked to the

policing of discriminatory laws. This is true of policing “public

morals” as well as immigration, street crime and “terrorism”. The

regulation of prostitution and gay sex is linked to hate crimes against

women and gay men. The policing of rape and violence against women, and

of homophobic crime, goes hand-in-hand with the policing of sex

offences.

Discrimination is not restricted to policing and regulation, of course,

but these are crucial areas where the state either intervenes directly,

or it fails to prevent, tolerates or supports hate crimes against the

same groups. Active legal and institutional discrimination is probably

the most devastating means of oppression where a state does not overtly

use physical violence.

Passive legal and institutional discrimination is also rife. Much of the

latter is to do with funding priorities for public services, and the

“decision-maker’s” idea of what matters. Since there is no direct

democratic control over service providers, what counts in deciding who

gets them are media campaigns, rich lobby groups, “income generation”,

prejudices and internal politics — in fact, anything except the actual

people and their service needs.

equality in court?

Reformists seek “equality” through the introduction, or strengthening,

of anti-discrimination legislation. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) was passed

in 1970 (with Equal Value Amendment Regulations in 1983), Race

Discrimination Acts (RDA) in 1975 and 1986, the Sex Discrimination Act

(SDA) in 1976, and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in 1995. More

recently, gay rights campaigners introduced the Sexual Orientation

Discrimination (SOD!) Bill, which was defeated last year.

Social mobility allows capitalism to use those not born into privilege.

Lack of discrimination allows it to use those who aren’t white, male or

able-bodied. The DDA, as an example of anti-discrimination legislation,

states that employers must make “reasonable adjustments” to the working

environment for disabled workers. The aim of this is to prevent the

bosses from discarding workers they need through discrimination. The

workers’ rights are secondary to the needs of capitalism.

turning on the power

Discrimination is regulated so it supports capitalism without harming

it. If you have any doubts about the need for/ability of the state to

modify the dominant ideology when it needs to, look no further than

World War II for an example. Women were drafted into jobs and industries

that had hitherto been supposedly against their nature. This

‘miraculous’ change of course was needed to help the war effort.

However, immediately after the war, they were also driven out of those

jobs, with the connivance of the trade union movement. Suddenly, the

discriminatory toolkit was again called for, in the interests of

supporting the capitalist state.

The ‘breadwinner’ pay structure which was established to drive women

back into the home still exists. It means that jobs that are seen to be

female, or which are predominantly done by women, are undervalued,

because it is assumed that such jobs are ‘second’ incomes, supplementary

to the (male) breadwinner’s. The fact that traditionally male jobs have

been exported and replaced by new jobs often dominated by women has not

changed the ideological underpinning of the pay structure.

So, capitalism exploits women’s labour more cheaply because they are not

supposed to earn a ‘family’ income, while simultaneously scrapping

breadwinner jobs. Any idea that capitalism does not need sexism, and

that the exploitation of female labour (the ‘right to work’) will lead

to equality for women is laughable. “Equality” might work for middle

class women in professions dominated by men (and therefore with “male”

incomes) but, for the vast majority, it’s a myth.

beyond equality

Our goal must be liberation, not the partial, false equality for the

middle classes. This does not mean the law cannot be useful to us now.

(Incidentally, the definitive guides here are the Codes of Practice

issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) on Equal Pay and

Employment, the Commission of Racial Equality (CRE) on Employment, and

the Department for Education and Employment (DEE) on the Employment of

Disabled People).

The law can be used as a basis for collective action and solidarity. It

can be used to illustrate and fight against discrimination at various

levels. But, crucially, the law cannot and must not be relied upon to

deliver solutions. At the end of the day, it is there to support and

strengthen capitalism and the state. While successful

anti-discrimination cases can be fought, the judicial process

individualises the issues and separates their resolution from the fight

against injustice. Our approach should be to use the law as a tool where

this is possible, but to combine it with pressure through direct action.

Outrage!’s “zaps” have been very effective, combined with grassroots

lobbying, in changing the way gay sex offences and hate crimes against

gay men are policed. The very act of taking such direct action helps us

gain a sense that we can have a say denied us by the “usual channels”.

Even this limited form of direct action can build a sense of power and

achievement. As more people experience this, we can go on from here to

build and take part in more direct action. Eventually, who knows, we

could be organising for direct action to challenge the whole capitalist

state machinery and replace it with something more agreeable to all of

us.

It is only by getting involved in struggles, rather than standing aside

because we don’t think they go far enough, that we can debate the aims

of those struggles, and the methods used. This does not involve a great

leap of imagination: if discrimination and inequality are wrong (and

they surely are), why is anyone considered better than the rest of us?

The contradictions between the aims of the law and the rhetoric of

equality are also there to be exploited.

Similarly, reforming or repealing discriminatory laws gains nothing in

itself, but it removes weapons which are used against sections of the

working class, and which harm us all. We have to recognise our own

diversity, and revive the idea that an injury to one is an injury to

all. If we don’t all fight discrimination collectively, those of us

affected by it will not be able to fight anything else.