The Spartacist League

[aeterna91]

Well, it was nice while it lasted... https://iclfi.org/pubs/wr/47/consent

[Learning to undeny]

They just don't want to focus on controversial cultural issues such as the age of consent. They've put the wider youth movement before the abolition of such laws, but that doesn't mean their morality has changed.

Our job as Marxists is to draw youth into the working-class struggle against capitalism in order to target the social roots of their oppression and eventually render these laws obsolete. This will only be done by targeting those repressive laws and practices which are the most concentrated expression of youth oppression, and where there is actual sentiment to fight back. The position we are rejecting created additional and substantial obstacles to drawing youth into the class struggle by confronting them in an extremely rigid manner on the terrain of their highly personal social attitudes about sex. It is not uncommon for political opponents (both left and right) to resort to the moral toolkit of the bourgeoisie and smear revolutionaries with positions that run counter to the dominant morality as a way to divert attention from what is needed to advance a particular struggle. While this tactic needs to be exposed, we should not make their job any easier. Revolutionaries must stand firm on communist morality, but should also minimize drawing lines over secondary issues that are bound to lead to a backlash.

Today, youth generally do not view the age of consent as specifically oppressive. Declaring war on it is just as counterproductive as declaring war on religion. Abolishing the age of consent means stripping young people of a legal protection without providing any other means to fight against or remove themselves from abuse. How we fight against youth oppression matters. The problem is not merely the social attitudes we encounter; it is the way we deal with them and seek to provide answers.

[aeterna91]

I suppose I’m being very critical because it pains me to see them abandon that stance, given that they were one of the few organizations that still held it. It’s true that what they say in the article isn’t absolutely terrible, since they still acknowledge that, in an ideal future, young people should have more autonomy and moral standards should be less reactionary… but it seems to me that they’re taking a significant step backward. And I definitely believe that the current age of consent is oppressive, and it’s worth pointing that out. I also believe that the idea that the age of consent is the primary mechanism for protecting young people from abuse is incorrect. Even if the age of consent were abolished tomorrow without any other changes in society—which I don’t think is the ideal scenario either; I agree that a shift in mindset would be very important—we still can’t pretend that there aren’t other mechanisms to prevent abuse: we have all the laws punishing rape, harassment, and abuse that also apply to adults; we have specific laws to protect minors from non-sexual abuse and humiliation that could also apply to sexual abuse...

But, I mean, we're not even saying that the age of consent should be abolished overnight. They could have simply taken the position that it should be lowered gradually as people's attitudes change, or something like that.

Anyway, as I said, maybe I'm being too demanding. I'm glad they haven't given in completely, but I think they've given in too much.

[Learning to undeny]

Well, from the title I got the impression that they opposed abolition of AoA more strongly than in the body of the article, but I get your sentiment. Organizations where adult-minor relations are supported in principle as a secondary issue probably have more potential to impact people than organizations where it's the main issue.