Unity

For the Unity of the Poor Against the Rich

In order to end exploitation, it is necessary to unite the poor against the rich.  The rich seek to divide and weaken the poor and use them.  Therefore, the workers need to develop a clear understanding of all those questions that divide the poor.  In a word, the working-class needs to develop unity on the basis of an international class-consciousness.

1. Anti-Imperialist Unity

2. National Question

3. Religious Question

4. Women

I.

Anti-Imperialist Unity

Unite the Many to Fight the Few

Who are our enemies and who are our friends?  The failure of all other previous revolutionary movements is because they could not unite with real friends to attack real enemies.  In order to unite with real friends to attack real enemies we must make a class analysis of Pakistan.

Society is divided into different classes and every class defends its interests.  In our society we have capitalists, shopkeepers, workers, landlords, peasants.  Every class organizes to defend their interests. However, today society is more and more splitting up into two great classes directly facing each other: Capitalist and Worker.

In conclusion, the mazdoor and kissans are the leading force of the revolution.  They should pursue a policy of winning over the middle-class and middle-peasants, neutralising the national-capitalists and rich peasants, in order to overthrow the ruling-class of civil military bureaucrats, feudals, and big capitalists.  This is shown in the diagram below.

Unite the Many to fight the Few!

II.

The National Question

The Poor have No Nation!

Workers of the World Unite!

The twentieth century has witnessed thousands of conflicts, involving millions of people, and millions of deaths, in the name of the nation.  In the sub-continent nationalism has also played a powerful role.  First, the struggle against British colonialism was conducted on the basis of Indian nationalism.  This was accompanied by a struggle for Pakistani nationalism.  The struggle of Bengali nationalism created Bangladesh.  The struggle for Kashmiri nationalism is going on in front of our eyes.  Similarly, national struggles in Baluchistan, NWFP, Sindh, Kashmir continue to this day.

By now history has confirmed that not a single one of these national struggles has solved the fundamental problem of the people.  Not a single nationalist struggle has created a society based on equality.  At the end of every purely nationalist movement the working-class has remained enslaved by the capitalist class.  So we must scientifically understand the roots of nationalism in order to understand its relation and impact on the struggle of the working class for freedom. 

What is a Nation? 

A nation is a stable community with a common language, common territory, common, economic life, and common culture.  If one of these features is missing then we cannot consider the community a nation.  Let us consider these characteristics in a little more detail.

1)    Stable community

2)    Language

3)    Territory

4)    Economic bond

5)    Culture

Stable community – A nation must be a stable community.  The feudal empires of the Mughals, Greeks, Mongols, Turks, Romans were very different from modern nations.  They were not stable communities but casual and loosely connected conglomerations of groups, which fell apart or joined together depending upon the victories or defeats of this or that conqueror. Thus, a nation is a stable community of people.

Language – However, not every stable community constitutes a nation.  What distinguishes a nation from a political community?  One of the distinguishing features is that a nation is based on a common language while a state or empire need not necessarily have a common language. Thus, a nation may even be formed from different races and tribes as long as they speak a common language.

Territory – This does not mean that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation.  Sometimes, two different nations speak the same language.  For example, English is spoken in both England and the United States.  Yet no one would assert that England and the United States are one nation.  This is because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories.  A nation is formed only as a result of the fact that people live together from generation to generation. But people cannot live together unless they have a common territory.  English and Americans originally inhabited the same territory, England, and constituted one nation.  Later, one section of the English emigrated from England to a new territory, America, and here, in the new territory, in the course of time came to form the new American nation.  Difference of territory led to the formation of different nations. Thus, community of territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

Economic bond – But this is not all. Community of territory does not create a nation.  An internal economic bond which welds the various parts of the nation into a single whole is also necessary.  There is no such bond between England and America, and so they constitute two different nations.  But the Americans are bound together into an economic whole. Thus, common economic life and  economic cohesion is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

Culture – But even this is not all.  We must also take into consideration the culture of the people.  Common conditions of life give rise to a common culture and a “national character”.  Needless to say, this common culture and “national character” is not fixed, but changes in accordance with the conditions of life.  Thus, common culture is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

A nation is a stable community with a common language, common territory, common,  economic life, and common culture.

The History of the Concept of Nation

Nations have not always existed, they are the product of rising capitalism.  As explained earlier, the empires of the Mughals, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Chengez Khan and so on were not modern nations.  They were unstable loose conglomerations of alliances held together on the economic structure of feudalism.  It was only with the rise of the capitalist class that modern nations were created.  The developing capitalist class required a monopoly on the means of production and on the domestic market.  In order to serve these purposes the capitalist class unified the people of a region to form nations. Where ever the formation of nations coincided with the formation of centralised capitalist states the result was the formation of a nation-state. Thus, the British, French, and Italians formed into nation-states during the victorious march of capitalism and its triumph over feudalism.

However, where the formation of states occurred before the formation of nations the result was the formation of multinational states.  For example, in Eastern Europe the exigencies of self-defence against the Turks and Mongols before the 20^th century created centralised states before the formation of nations.  This resulted in multinational states of Austria, Hungary, and Russia.  Multinational states consist of one powerful, dominant nation and several weak, subject nations.  The ruling-class of the dominant nation exploits and plunders the weak nations in multinational states.  This is called National Oppression.  National oppression results in nationalist movements of the oppressed nation against the oppressor.  That is why multinational states constantly face instability in the face of national movements. 

The national problem simply cannot be solved while preserving an exploitative economic system.

The growth of capitalism in Europe, the need for new markets, the search for raw materials, and fuel led to a period of colonialism.  At the turn of the 20^th century the capitalist system reached a new stage of monopoly and became imperialism based on the export of capital (multinational companies and big banks).  Thus, five main imperial powers colonised the entire world (Britain, USA, France, Germany, Japan).  The drive to monopolise and dominate the world led to the First World War in 1914.  In the name of “defending the nation”, the capitalist class of Europe fooled the working class.  Workers began to butcher each other for the sake of expanding the profit of their capitalist masters.  All in all 20 million people were killed in the name of the nation.  From these fires of war, the Russian working class led by V.I. Lenin was able to overthrow the exploiters and establish a working-class government.  The Russian working class was able to overthrow their exploiters because they were not fooled by the slogan of the nation.  They refused to butcher other working-class brothers and sisters and turned their guns against the capitalists of their own nation.  In a word, they fought not for the nation but for their class.

In the colonies, a nationalist movement against the colonialists gained strength.  This nationalist movement was led by a newly developed class of capitalists in the colonies. In India this movement was led by All India Congress.  Similarly, the newly emerging capitalist class among the Muslims of India was led by the Muslim League.

Only two decades after the First World War, once again the name of “defending the nation” the capitalist states of Europe launched the Second World War in 1939.  One of the objects of this war was to colonise the Soviet Union (Russia) that had become a powerful society based on the working-class and led by Joseph Stalin.  In order to achieve this task the philosophy of fascism was spread all over Europe.  Fascism was based on militant anti-working-class nationalism.  At the same time Japan launched an attack to colonise China.  In the Second World War 50 million people were killed in the name of the nation.  Once again from amidst the fires of war a series of working-class states were created. The largest working-class society in the world led by Mao Tse-Tung was established in China and working-class governments were established all over Eastern and Central Europe.

The devastation from war and the combined working-class assault made the European capitalists states extremely weak.  In the colonies the nationalist movement (led by the newly created capitalist class) pushed for independence.  In India and Pakistan Independence from British rule was granted in 1947.  The workers and peasants rejoiced thinking that now a period of freedom, equality, and justice would prevail.  At first they did not grasp that the nationalist movement had brought to power the newly created capitalist class in the colonies.  However, after 54 years of unfulfilled promises from the national movement, the workers and peasants are now filled with disappointment and disgust.  They are moving away from national struggle and awakening to a new form of struggle: the class struggle.

Let us turn to Pakistan

We know that Pakistan was created on the basis of the two-nation theory.  The two-nation theory argued that there were two nations in India, namely Hindu and Muslim.  On this basis the Muslim League led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah demanded the creation of Pakistan as a state for the Muslims.  Let us asses this theory in the light of the last 54 years of history.  First we must understand the class character of the nationalist movement.

The simple fact is that the Congress Party was the party of a newly emerging Indian capitalist class dominated by Hindus from the North of India. Even though Gandhi dressed like a peasant, this did not change the class character of the nationalist movement.  The leadership of the Congress Party was dominated by people who were interested primarily in promoting the interests of the newly emerging capitalist class. They required the help of the workers and peasants to throw out the British.  Gandhi’s peasant style and non-violent movement was a means to mobilise the workers in order to bring the newly emerging capitalist class to power.  Now that this class is in power, the workers and peasants are left to starve all over India.

Similarly, the simple fact is that the Muslim League was the party of a newly emerging capitalist class among the Muslims.  Even though the Mohammed Ali Jinnah upheld the slogan “Islam in danger”, this did not change the class character of the Pakistani nationalist movement.  The leadership of the Muslim League was dominated by people who were interested primarily in promoting the interests of the newly emerging capitalist class among the Muslims.  They required the support of workers and peasants to create Pakistan.  “Islam in danger” and the two-nation theory was a means to mobilise the workers in order to bring the newly emerging capitalist class among Muslims to power in Pakistan.  Now that this class is in power, the workers and peasants are left to starve all over Pakistan.  Today the workers can clearly see that whenever the big politicians in Pakistan speak about “sacrificing for Pakistan” they actually mean that the working-class should sacrifice for the ruling class of Pakistan.

But if Gandhi and Jinnah were representatives of a newly emerging capitalist class, why did the workers and peasants support them? And why did the Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs slaughter each other?

Primarily the reason was that the capitalist class was more politically consciousness regarding their class interests than the workers.  Workers and peasants were not class-conscious enough to stop the destructive side of nationalism.  Just like the workers of Europe during the First and Second World War the workers of India slaughtered each other for the interests of the capitalists of their religion or nationality.

Secondly, workers and peasants also gained owing to the Independence movement.  At the political level the independence movement asserted the equality of all people.  This was a significant advance for the freedom of colonial people.  However, the principle of equality was not applied to the realm of economic relations.  At a political level the capitalist and the worker became equal (they both cast one vote each, they both had to stand in the same court of law and so on).  But at the economic level the capitalist and the worker remained as before (the worker was a slave of the capitalist, the peasant a slave of the feudal).  The result was that the promises of the Independence movement (equality and democracy for all people) remained only half-fulfilled promises. In order to fulfil the promises of the Independence movement (equality and democracy) it is now necessary to overthrow the ruling-class of India and Pakistan.  Since we are workers of Pakistan we must overthrow the ruling-class of Pakistan.  It is necessary to make a working-class revolution that asserts not only political equality but also economic equality. 

In conclusion, the national struggle is a struggle among the capitalists.  Even when the workers participate in this struggle, in essence it is chiefly favourable and suitable for the capitalist class. In other words, it is necessary to break from the ideas of nation and nationalism and adopt the ideas of international class struggle.

Nationalism divides the workers and favours the ruling-class

International Class Struggle unites the workers and favours the working-class

How do we build an International Class Unity?

The policy of the capitalists is to create national hostility between peoples of different nations.  The policy of the workers is to remove that hostility between nations. The aim of the workers is to create the international unity of workers.

In order to create the international unity of workers, it is extremely important to remove all forms of national oppression.  To remove the roots of hostility.  To take off the edge of hostility between nations and reduce it to a minimum.  Thus, it is important to uphold the right of all nations to self-determination including the right of succession.  This because “no unification of peoples into a single state can be firm unless these people themselves voluntarily so decide” Stalin.

Only the people of a nation themselves have the right to determine their destiny, no one has the right to forcibly interfere in the life of a nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights. The right of self-determination means that the people of a nation can arrange their life on the basis of autonomy.  They have the right to enter into federal relations with other nations.  They also have the right to complete succession.  The people of all nations are sovereign and equal.

Does the right of self-determination mean that we support every demand of a nation?  Does the right of self-determination mean that we support succession in all cases?

The right to self-determination does not mean that workers should support every demand of a nation.  Certain nations may practice the policy of child brides, honour killings, marrying to the Quran.  But workers cannot support such demands.  A nation has the right to succeed but this does not mean that workers should support secessionist movement.  For example, the succession of the colonies from the British empire was a tremendously positive step that took the struggle for freedom one step forward.  Therefore, workers should support it.  The succession of 15 republics from the Soviet Union was a backward step that destroyed the international unity of the working class of the Soviet Union.  Therefore, workers should oppose it.

In conclusion, it is important to draw the distinction between the right of nations to self-determination and the program of a workers party.  There are demands that may not be contrary to the right of nations but are contrary to the program of a workers party.

We must draw the distinction between the right to do something and the manner in which that right is exercised.  In other words, we must draw the distinction between the right to do something and whether doing something is right.  For example, under a democracy people have the right to freedom of expression.  This does not mean that everything expressed is right.  In a democratic marriage couples have a right to divorce.  This does not mean that every decision to get a divorce is right.

Similarly, nations have a right to succession.  This does not mean that workers should support every secessionist movement.  Sometimes workers need to work against the idea of succession.   Nations have the right to arrange their life.  This does not mean that workers should support oppressive customs in nations.  Workers should work against oppressive customs in nations.

So what should workers do in Pakistan?

Workers should struggle against all forms of national oppression in order to bring about the international unity of all workers.  Thus, workers should struggle against national oppression and at the same time struggle against the ideas of nationalism within the working class.  In creating the international unity of workers two errors are possible.  Sometimes, workers get so carried away in the struggle against national oppression that they become nationalists.  They thus become pawns of the local ruling-class.  At other times, workers get so carried away in the struggle against nationalism that they discontinue the fight against national oppression.  They thus become pawns of the dominant ruling-class. 

Thus, workers should uphold the right of all nations to the use of their language. They should uphold complete democracy and regional autonomy as the basis for the solution of the national problem.  At the same time, working-class party and working-class organisations should work against any form of  organisational federalism, disintegration, or separatism caused by nationalism within their ranks.  The goal of their efforts is to create the solid iron unity of all the workers of all nations.  That is why we say,

The Poor have No Nation!

Workers of the World Unite!

III.

Religious Question

Workers of all Religions Unite and Fight the Rich!

The object of our party and movement is to unite the workers to end exploitation.  In other words, the aim of our party and movement is to struggle for the oppressed against the oppressor.  This is a continuation of the struggle of the all the great Prophets of all the great religions in every part of the world.  For example, Hazrat Mohammed led the greatest revolt of the oppressed in Arabia against the degenerate rich and powerful.  Hazrat Mosa led the greatest slave rebellion against the mighty Ferons.  Jesus Christ said, “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven”.  Buddha led a powerful social movement against the caste system.

Given this fact, the maulvis should bless our party and movement for continuing this great work.  Instead, from the moment when workers began their struggle against the ruling-class, the maulvis came out with fatwas not only against our party and against all working-class leaders.  They tried to belittle the working-class leaders in the eyes of the people.  Even today, every Friday they never fail to bring forward their political program of Jihad in Kashmir.  But they never speak about the struggle of the workers against capitalists, or the struggle of the peasants against the feudals.  To the workers they preach that workers must show more humility, patience, and forbearance.  They tell the workers not to revolt but to submit obediently.  Thus, the maulvis have made themselves the spokesmen of the rich, the defender of exploitation, and placed themselves in flagrant violation with the revolutionary spirit of the doctrines of all the great religions. Why?

This is simply because most mosques are financed by the rich.  The mosques have been taken over by the rich.  The rich pay for the marbles, the arches, the fine minarets and domes.  The rich even pay the salary of the maulvis.  The maulvis go to rich peoples houses to teach their children the word of God and receive big salaries for doing so.  On the other hand, the maulvis extract money out of the workers.  Some maulvis will not perform marriage or burial ceremonies until they have been paid in full.  For these individuals religion is no longer a selfless service but a trade.  How often do workers have to sell their last possessions just to bury their dead or to marry their children?  Still the workers bear their pain with fortitude and courage. 

It is true that there are maulvis of an entirely different character.  There are some who are full of goodness and pity and who do not seek gain.  They are always ready to help the poor.  But these are very uncommon.  The majority of maulvis bow and scrape to the rich and powerful and silently pardon them for every sin, every depravity, and every iniquity.  But with the workers the majority of maulvis behave in a different way.  They only think of squeezing them.

Our party and movement never wishes to drive the workers to fight against the maulvis or try to interfere with people’s religious beliefs.  Our party and movement uphold the right of all religious communities to the Freedom of Religious practice.  No one has the right to persecute or attack the particular religious opinion of others.  But when people use religion to fight the workers, then it is our duty to expose their evil designs.

The Political Program of the Religious Parties

The political program of the religious parties does not include the elimination of capitalism that is, the elimination of private property.  They want to maintain capitalism because they think it is a very good system.  When workers ask them how corruption, poverty, inflation, and unemployment will be eliminated, their only answer is that “once Islam is introduced everything will be fine”.  By this phrase they mean that once the ruling-class accept Islam the capitalists will change their attitude towards the poor.  In their view it is only a matter of the ruling-class accepting Islam for the poor and the rich to live amicably. 

However, what they do not realise is that the capitalist system has its own economic logic that compels the ruling-class to exploit the workers.  As we explained earlier, capitalist competition constantly forces individual capitalists to expand, increase their profits, and take over other industries.  If one capitalist does not expand and becomes charitable other capitalists will eat him like a shark.  Thus, as long as the factories and farms are private property, this competition whereby the big fish eat the small fish cannot stop.  As long as capitalism continues the exploitation and poverty of the workers will continue to increase.  Thus, even if the ruling-class becomes religious (which is next to impossible), they are part of the capitalist system simply cannot stop exploiting workers and creating poverty and misery.

Sometimes, the maulvis say that they don’t believe in capitalism but in Islam.  But this is dishonest because their interpretation of Islam upholds the inviolability of private property.  In other words, their interpretation of Islam is compatible with private property and capitalism.  In conclusion, they fully uphold private property and capitalism.  The reason why religious parties uphold capitalism is that they are mostly based in small traders.  Therefore, they are strong upholders of capitalism and private property.  However, bigger capitalists continuously crush these small traders.  Thus, they are caught in the middle.  On the one hand, they want to maintain private-property.  On the other hand, bigger capitalists continuously crush them.  However, through most of Pakistan’s history they have sided with the rich against the poor.

How the rich use the maulvis to fight the workers!

The rich utilise the services of maulvis to divide the workers along religious lines.  Once workers are divided the rich can use them as cannon fodder to fight wars of conquest.  In sum, the policy of the capitalists is to create religious hostility between peoples of different religions.

It follows that the aim of the workers should be to create the unity of workers of all religions.  Therefore, the policy of the workers is to remove the hostility between religions.  In order to remove the hostility between religions, it is important to struggle against all forms of religious oppression.  Thus, it is important to uphold the right to the Freedom of Religious Practice.  The freedom of religious practice means that no one has the right to forcibly interfere in religious affairs, to destroy madrassas, places of worship, and other institutions, or to violate religious habits and customs, or to repress sacred texts, or to curtail rights. The right of freedom of religious practice means that the people of each religion themselves decide how to arrange their life.  It means that the people of all religions are equal.

Does the freedom of religious practice mean that we support every demand of a religious community?  No, upholding the right of freedom of religion should not be confused with endorsing the views of religious movements.  Sometimes, religion is used as a cover to justify oppressive practices.  For example, religion is used as a justification for honour killings and to oppress women. Workers should struggle against all oppressive practices, and should not be fooled when these practices are justified in the name of religion.  In conclusion, it is important to draw the distinction between the freedom of religious practice and the program of a workers party.  There may be demands that may not be contrary to the freedom of religious practice but are contrary to the program of a workers party.

In conclusion, workers should struggle against all forms of religious oppression in order to bring about the unity of workers of all religions.  It follows from this that not only should workers struggle against religious oppression; they should at the same time struggle against the ideas of religious sectarianism.  In creating the unity of workers of all religions two errors are possible.  Sometimes, workers get so carried away in the struggle against religious oppression that they become religious sectarians.  They thus become pawns of the ruling-class of that religious community.  Working-class party and working-class organisations should work against any form of organisational federalism, disintegration, or separatism caused by religious sectarianism within their ranks.  At other times, workers get so carried away in the struggle against religious sectarianism that they discontinue the fight against religious oppression.  They thus become pawns of the dominant religious community. 

A new way of fighting the workers!

The maulvis have devised two ways of fighting the workers.  Where the working-class movement is weak the maulvis try to crush it by threats of force, slandering them, condemning them and issuing fatwas against them.  But where the working-class movement is strong the maulvis hide their real purpose and becomes a false friend of the working-class movement.  Thus, you see the maulvis making Islamic Trade Unions in order to catch the fish in their net to teach the workers humility and obedience.  True working-class organisations teach the workers that they are equal to the capitalists and they must prepare for a working-class revolution.  The false working-class organisations mislead the workers.  Therefore, it is important to forewarn the workers against the honeyed words of the false friends of the working-class.  The working-class does not fight against religious beliefs.  On the contrary, it demands complete freedom of religious practice and the widest possible toleration of every faith and every opinion.  But from the moment that the maulvis use their position against the working-class the workers must fight the enemies of their rights and their liberation.  For he who defends the exploiters and who helps to prolong this present regime of misery, he is the mortal enemy of the working-class, whether he is in uniform or religious clothes.  In conclusion, our goal is to create the solid iron unity of the workers of all religions in order to fight the rich.

Workers of all Religions

Unite and Fight the Rich!!!

IV.

Women

Women Hold up Half the Sky!

Our society, which has only recently emerged from feudalism and colonialism, remains semi-feudal and semi-colonial.  In our society the oppression of women is justified in the name of culture and religion.  Thus, in addition to suffering under the yoke of the ruling-class, women in Pakistan suffer from inequality within their own families.  The capitalist system leads to the exploitation of the entire working-family but in a semi-feudal semi-colonial system women are considered the slaves of the head of the family.  Women are considered second-class and inferior to men.  On the other hand, capitalism utilises women as objects of attraction to sell capitalist commodities.  Thus, capitalism is daily introducing a culture of obscenity and vulgarity.  In order to fight against feudal ideas and degenerate capitalist culture we need education to build a culture that respects women.  Thus, not only do workingwomen suffer as workers, they also suffer as women. 

Is it possible for workers to liberate themselves without the active participation of workingwomen?  If women do not participate in building a revolutionary movement, the strength of our movement is automatically reduced to half since half the working population is composed of women.  That is why our party says, “Women hold up half the sky”.  Furthermore, if workingwomen do not participate in building a revolutionary movement, workingmen will soon discover that without support from their own families they are only half as effective.  Thus, without the participation of women the movement automatically loses three quarters of its strength and only functions with one quarter.  In conclusion, it is simply impossible to build a movement against the ruling-class without unity of workingmen and workingwomen in the struggle.  When we talk of the unity of the working-class, we mean the unity of workingmen and workingwomen.

How can this unity be created?  This unity can only be created on the basis of full democracy and full equality for women and men in all fields of life.  If workingmen treat workingwomen as inferior and deny them their full rights, then all thoughts of creating a revolution against capitalism will remain an empty slogan.  If workingmen do not accept the principle of the equality of women in all fields of life, they will not be able to unite the entire working family and all the workers will forever remain slaves of the ruling-class.  Here are some of the basic principles upon which our party struggles in the context of Pakistan.

The maulvi interpretation of Islam argues that men and women should be segregated, that a man should be allowed to marry up to four women, that the man should be allowed to verbally divorce a woman, that sexual misconduct should be very severely punished by the state, that women should inherit half the property of men, that their testimony should be half of men, that a woman’s place is in the home, and so on.  They justify all these practices in the name of Islam.  In our opinion, the maulvis perform the greatest disservice to our people in the name of Islam.

Islam was a revolutionary movement in 7^th century Arabia and transformed a nomadic and tribal society into an Empire.  For that period of history and in the context of that society Islamic laws were tremendously revolutionary.  These laws safeguarded the rights of the oppressed, women, and minorities.  No other social movement at that time in history had even dreamed of granting such revolutionary rights.  Islam gave a modern new and revolutionary code of life that led to a fantastic advance in human creativity, learning, education, and knowledge.  However, today as we move into the 21^st century it is blatantly obvious that social conditions have become radically different.  The development of human knowledge and the growth of capitalism have changed all the old social conditions.  That is why if we were to mechanically apply those laws today we would only create more poverty, misery, backwardness, ignorance, and help to consolidate the rule of the rich.  Workers of every religious community must themselves decide whether they wish to continue with laws that consolidate the rule of the rich, or if they want to develop new revolutionary laws, rules, customs, traditions and help consolidate the power of the poor.  Our party will fight untiringly for the poor and oppressed.  Since workingwomen are not just oppressed as workers they are also oppressed as women it is our duty to struggle shoulder to shoulder with all our sisters.  In order to create full equality between men and women we advocate the following changes in our culture.

First, maulvis argue that men and women should be segregated from each other.  They argue that a woman’s proper place is in the home.  They argue that segregation removes the temptation but the real motivations of maulvis are not religious but economic.  The fact is that the capitalist market is pulling women into the work force where they are competing for jobs that traditionally belonged only to men.  Segregation is simply a tool to keep women out of the work force and safeguard the jobs of men.  Segregation is not enforced equally but always enforced against women—women are told not to step out of the house, not to get new jobs, not to engage in national life.  While women are forced to stay in the house, men are encouraged to participate in all fields of national life.  The result is that segregation is simply a form of discrimination towards women and retards the intellectual, education, and cultural growth of women.  Segregation subjects 50% of our population to backwardness and ignorance.  Women should receive equal pay for equal work.  There is simply no justification for giving women less money for the same work that men perform for more money.  Individuals should be rewarded in accordance with the amount of work they have performed not on the basis of whether they are a man or a woman.  In sum, without fully involving women in every field of our national life it is not possible to destroy our backwardness.  It is true that under capitalism the only kinds of jobs available to men and women degrade, humiliate, and debase the workers.  This underscores the necessity of overthrowing the capitalist system in order to create a secure, safe, and respectful work environment for working men and women.  However, this can only happen by encouraging the participation of women in all aspects of national life including the revolutionary movement.  In conclusion, our party is against segregation and in favour of the participation of women in all aspects of national life.

Second, one man should only be permitted to marry one woman.  The maulvis will no doubt say that this is against Islam.  The fact is that permission to marry four women was only granted because many years of war had created an imbalance between the ratio of men and women in 7^th century Arabia.  War, revenge, and conditions of hardship had created a situation in which women outnumbered men by four to one.  Thus, it was permitted that one man be allowed to marry up to four women (mostly widows).  But clearly no such situation exists in Pakistan today.  In fact in Pakistan today both men and women are half and half of the population.  Therefore, the conditions that gave rise to this law are no longer present.  In fact, in the new conditions of economic inequality, greed, and avarice, permission to marry more than one woman is used as a justification for the oppression of women.  It has given rise to a situation whereby rich men are able to buy more than one bride from poor and desperate families.  This oppressive practice must be immediately stopped and can only be stopped by prohibiting the marriage of a man to more than one woman.

Third, the laws concerning divorce must be the same for both men and women.  Our party is against the break-up of loving families.  But every mature person recognizes that in certain circumstances divorce becomes unavoidable.  This may be because of abusive partners, or husbands involved in drugs and alcohol, or simply because two people cannot amicably live together anymore.  As long as the laws concerning divorce are unequal women bear greater hardship.  Furthermore, men continue to have a legal and cultural justification to treat women as inferior citizens.  Therefore, women and men should have the exact same rights of divorce.  However, equality in terms of the law does not guarantee equality in society.  For example, women have to raise children and in our society they are economically dependent on their husbands.  Therefore, they are never keen to break marriages and are ready to tolerate great hardship.  Furthermore, men are able to use the threat of a verbal-divorce to blackmail their wives into submission.  Yet, whenever divorce occurs society blames the woman more than the man.  It is easy to blame the woman because she is socially weak, it is difficult to blame the man because he is socially strong.    This practice can only be stopped if the laws of divorce are equal and the process of divorce occurs through the courts of law and not verbally and the cultural stigma against divorced or single women is be removed from our culture. 

In our society marriage is not considered an act of love.  Marriage is considered a duty and an obligation.  In fact those people who fall in love and want to get married are often killed by their own family members.  Love therefore is something that has little or nothing to do with marriage.  All kinds of ideological arguments are presented to justify this practice.  There is an active propaganda that love marriages never work and always fall apart.  Arranged marriages are more successful.  Then there is the view that one can grow to love anyone.  Therefore, arranged marriages are best.  There is the view that parents know what is best for their children and that the children are young and impressionable and therefore should not be allowed to marry from their own choice.  A fear is put into the minds of youngsters about evil boys who use women and evil women who use boys.  No doubt there are people who are led by selfish motives, however, they are the exception not the rule and it does not justify the kind of cynicism that is promoted in society.

When young boys are rebellious their parents often argue that the boy should be quickly married off.  The responsibility of marriage places a heavy burden on the individual and they begin to simmer down.  In the overwhelming majority of cases marriage is considered a burden.  When the woman reaches a certain age her parents begin to pressure her to get married.  In fact certain girls are not allowed to pursue higher education because if they become too educated they may not be able to find a more educated man to marry because men do not want to marry women who are more educated than they are.

As a result in Pakistan marriage is a terrible pain and a burden.  In both men and women there is extremely strong resentment against each other.  Families are not composed of loving couples but often couples that have resigned to their fate and are meekly eking out an existence. 

The resentment in the family becomes the cause of life long fighting and feuding between the two genders.  The man utilises his privileges to further suppress women whom they come to resent for have “taken away their freedom.” And the women equally resent the men for “never have given them any freedom.” 

The very thought of two consenting adults marrying each other out of a feeling of mutual love is alien to our culture and society.  We have become enemies of love.

We long to see a society in which men and women do not consider it an obligation or duty to be married to each other.  Where men and women are free to make up their own minds about their respective life partners.  Where marriage is an act of love.  Where families are based on equality and democracy.  Where children grow up in a healthy environment of mutual respect, love, support, and understanding.  Not an environment of animosity, resentment, hatred, and oppression.

Fourth, our party upholds that men and women should inherit the same amount of property.  The practice of depriving women the right of equal inheritance is a product of the process of accumulating and concentrating wealth in a few hands.   Our movement has already rejected the very concept of private property and explained to every one that the workers can only be free and liberated if they eliminate private property altogether.  However, till such time as private property is not fully eliminated, workers should struggle for the right of women to inherit the same amount of property as men.  This will send a clear message to all of society that our movement stands for the full equality of women in all walks of life.  Since workers have already dedicated their lives to the elimination of private property, if they are true revolutionaries they should not hesitate to share equally with their sons and daughters whatever they leave for their children.  Our movement declares that we will share our modest possessions equally between our sons and daughters.

Fifth, the testimony of men and women should be equal.  The worthiness of the testimony of an individual should be based on the honesty and sincerity of individual.  The testimony of a woman should not be half that of a man simply because the individual is a woman.  This law discriminates against women.  Furthermore, women require extra legal safeguards against rape and sexual assault.  The current laws do not safeguard women but legitimise the oppression of women by protecting male offenders.

Sixth, the maulvis, who only seem to be concerned with matters concerning women, argue that sexual misconduct should be severely punished by public flogging and stoning to death.  In the entire world sexual misconduct is considered a private offence not an offence against the state.  It is not the purpose of the modern state to intervene in the private lives of people.  Sexual misconduct should be discouraged by education but these private offences cannot be considered a crime against the state. 

The religious parties are the ones most strongly opposed to these reforms.  Firstly, their entire history shows that they have always defended the rich against the poor.  In this case they again defend the oppressive practices of men against women.  Their central task is to sap the strength of the workers movement by advocating policies that oppress women.  These religious parties are not ready to accept equality of women because they do not want to lose their own male privileges. Workers should struggle against all oppressive practices against women and unite workingwomen and men to fight against the rich.  These reforms of equality between men and women are a continuation of the revolutionary spirit of the struggle of all the great prophets of history.  With the full equality of women we will build a glorious new revolutionary world that will make future generations proud.  That is why we say, women hold up half the sky. 

Discrimination against single women.  It is automatically assumed that if a women is not married she is not worthy of respect in this society.  People automatically assume that she must be up to “wrong things”.  If there is a divorce in a family it is automatically assumed that the woman was to blame.  No one ever blames the man.  Even people who have themselves suffered owing to these problems turn around and blame women for all the sins of society.  In the final analysis women are blamed for all the sins of society. 

It is not women who are to blame for the loss of freedom of men.  It is the social system that forces two people to be together against their wishes and desires.  Many people say that in arranged marriages the consent of both partners is acquired.  While this is formally true, the nature of that consent is not based on love but on other considerations.  Considerations such as the fact that marriage will make their family members happy. Many women think that after marriage they might have a little more freedom.  They will have more freedom than they did when they were in their parents house.  Considerations such as wealth and status.

Women are not domestic slaves whose only purpose in life is to serve their man and bear children.  Women are human beings.  And just as any human being women need their fundamental rights.  Including the right to participate in all aspects of national life.  In our society women cannot even walk down the street to the corner shop to buy food let alone participate in all aspects of national life.  We have made it a question of honour.  Who has honour in our society?  Everyone is dishonoured by the mere fact that they are living in slave like conditions of poverty.  The capitalists don’t care to change these attitudes because it helps to have such families.  Such family structures ensure the continued enslavement of the women to the man, and as a result the entire working family to the capitalist system.

Women need education.  They need health care.  They need to participate in politics.  They need to participate in making all the important decisions of our country.  But in our society women cannot even participate in making basic decisions about the lives of their families or even their own lives.  They are complete domestic slaves.  All of this is justified in the name of religion and culture.  The overwhelming majority of our jokes are against ethnic minorities or against women.  These jokes, these jibes, these attitudes discriminate against all the oppressed segments of society.  They create an atmosphere of deep cynicism, disrespect, and distrust.  When we want to abuse a man, we abuse the women connected to that man.  This abuse has become so common in the working class that people have seized to even think about the words they are using while speaking.  Such callous disregard towards the basic human dignity of other people is utterly deplorable.  All of this must change.

Conclusion

Working Women and Men

Unite to Fight the Rich

Workers of All Religions

Unite and Fight the Rich

The Poor have no Nation

Workers of the World Unite

Unite the Many to Fight the Few