Why did Stalin re-outlaw homosexuality and abortion?

[Cheung Mo]

I've never understood why the Soviet Union undid many of the liberal (with respect to sex and gender) reforms that had been undertaken while Lenin was in power. Was there any legitimate reason for these reforms to be undone or were Stalin and his allies within the bureaucracy just acting like some provincial bigots who wanted more tools with which they could turn the state apparatus against their political enemies?

Much of the anti-gay sentiment I've heard from the left is pseudo-scientific propaganda about bourgeois decadence that comes across as little more than preexisting bigotry wrapped around in a read flag.

Once you unwrap it, it still stinks like shit. It seems to be that Stalin's decision and the subsequent refusal to reliberalize laws and minds is responsible for much of the misogynist and homophobic sentiment that remains in Russia and Eastern Europe.

[FSL]

He lived in the 1930s. A huge coincidence, in the 1930s everyone else was living in the 1930s too. Shoooocking.

[h0m0revolutionary]

He lived in the 1930s. A huge coincidence, in the 1930s everyone else was living in the 1930s too. Shoooocking.

And that makes it right does it?

So Lenin, Kerensky et al could see what LGBT discrimmination was. And has a very basic conception of female bodily autonomy. But Stalin couldn't appreciate these two very basic things?

[FSL]

It makes it natural that these positions weren't at the time appreciated by the whole russian society. There was a period of legalization but basic opinions didn't evidently change.
This is like blaming Marx for using the word Negro or Marx and Engels for laughing at gay men in one of their letters. It was a different era, nothing like we know today. It's as simple as that.

[h0m0revolutionary]

It was a different era, nothing like we know today. It's as simple as that.

No, no it isn't.

Denying women the basic right to control their own fertility - treating them as something akin to equal beings to men is a basic leftist instinct.

The same with treating LGBTQ individuals is, or at least should be, a given. There were homosexual reforms and reformers in and around Russia at the time, ignorance isn't an excuse. You know as well as I that moralism, blunt reactionary views and popularism were the foundation of Stalin's u-turns. Nothing else.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The short answer is that Stalinist policies undid these freedoms because they wanted to boost production and rebuild a labor force. I don't know the details, but I also believe the USSR leaders went all-out to promote childbirth at this same time and gave "patriotic" awards for women who produced a lot of kids.

In capitalism during industrialization, the ruling classes began to promote ideas about sexual and gender norms and "abnormalities". They began to promote the idea of women as weak and sensitive and only suited for the education and care of children. Women and children were gradually removed from the workforce and public schools began to be introduced: all with the aim of creating the next generation of workers who were conditioned to work and were generally healthy and not missing limbs from too much work in the mills.

The ideal man was hardworking and stoic; not complaining and showing little emotion (because it you're a Victorian era boss, the emotions that you would likely see from your workforce would range from rage to murderous rage). And certainty the victorian working class man was not allowed to show any compassion or tenderness or love for other men and so behaviors were divided up and categorized by Victorian scientists.

At any rate, when the USSR went down the path of "socialism in one country", the leadership needed to create a generation of workers and peasants capable of doing the work of working class people in the industrialized countries. If you have a state-capitalist view of the USSR, then outlawing homosexuality and promoting childbirth fit into the idea that the USSR's ruling class was trying to catch up with capitalism on the backs of the working class. Ideologically, attacking homosexuality or any other kind of way of being that was contrary to depictions in soviet-realist art goes hand in hand with attacking any minority views or behaviors or politics.

[FSL]

In capitalism during industrialization, the ruling classes began to promote ideas about sexual and gender norms and "abnormalities". They began to promote the idea of women as weak and sensitive and only suited for the education and care of children. Women and children were gradually removed from the workforce and public schools began to be introduced: all with the aim of creating the next generation of workers who were conditioned to work and were generally healthy and not missing limbs from too much work in the mills.



This part in particular is downright absurd. Women were for the first time ever during industrialization argued to be weak? They were removed from the workforce?

[Jimmie Higgins]

This part in particular is downright absurd. Women were for the first time ever during industrialization argued to be weak? They were removed from the workforce?

What, you don't believe me? Pick up a book sometime - this isn't some hidden fact only radicals know about - any history book covering Victorian England or Industrial America at the same time will probably talk about the bourgeois reformers and the end of child labor.

Just think for a minute - remember reading about those peasants who told female peasants they shouldn't work because they were too fragile? No, it never happened - peasants put everyone to work because they needed all the labor they could get. The concept that women are fragile in mind and body is a Victorian concept.

In early industrialization, most mills were filled with young female workers - children too. By the Victorian era, bourgeois reformers were trying to get children and women out of the workforce because on a moral level, they were just being destroyed by the work, Victorian society was also shocked by the conditions of street-kids and working women. On a ruling class level, the capitalists simply needed order among workers because a generation of street-kids missing fingers from mill-work eventually hurts production.

So Victorian society promoted the idea of the nuclear family where the man worked and the woman cared for the children and educated them. Labor became increasingly male-dominated aside from certain fields.

[ComradeOm]

He lived in the 1930s. A huge coincidence, in the 1930s everyone else was living in the 1930s too. Shoooocking.Which may be excusable* if the USSR's policies in the prior decade had not been amongst the most progressive in the world. The rolling back of these rights was an undoubted retrograde step for the leader of a supposedly revolutionary party

*The logical extension of your argument being that there was little wrong with eugenics programmes that were endorsed by the majority of the population


The short answer is that Stalinist policies undid these freedoms because they wanted to boost production and rebuild a labor force. I don't know the details, but I also believe the USSR leaders went all-out to promote childbirth at this same time and gave "patriotic" awards for women who produced a lot of kidsIts worth putting this into the context of pro-natal policies during the 1930s. With the heightened expectation of war, a number of other countries (including Nazi Germany and France) began to encourage mothers to raise larger families in order to bridge what would today be called the 'demographic gap'. The idea that the power of a nation was linked to its population was nothing new of course but it was the early 20th C when governments actively began to plan/police this


What, you don't believe me? Pick up a book sometime - this isn't some hidden fact only radicals know about - any history book covering Victorian England or Industrial America at the same time will probably talk about the bourgeois reformers and the end of child labor.

Just think for a minute - remember reading about those peasants who told female peasants they shouldn't work because they were too fragile? No, it never happened - peasants put everyone to work because they needed all the labor they could get. The concept that women are fragile in mind and body is a Victorian concept.Now here I disagree with you because what may have been true for Victorian Britain is not necessarily so for Soviet Russia. On the contrary, women were heavily represented in the workforce of the USSR, comprising (from memory) over 40% of workers during the 1930s and roughly 50% during the post-war period. Certainly there was little drive to keep women out of the factories in Stalin's time

Which is not to say that women were free from discrimination. The renewed emphasis on family life during the 1930s considerably increased the burden on wives and mothers. In addition to a hard day's paid work they were then expected to return home and complete the many daily chores (including preparing meals) for their husbands/families

[FSL]

In the precapitalist societies I 'm familiar with women were staying at home. This did change with industrialization when previous relations of production were surpassed and one person working was insufficient to keep a family afloat. I am not aware of any big movement removing women from the workplace in Victorian England and I can be sure that this wasn't the deal in other countries. I know for example that when industrialization started taking place here in the first decades of 20th century, some women broke what was a century-old habit by leaving the house and working in factories and that this trend gradually went on to become the norm in 70s-80s.

I think that this course of events is what went on in most countries with women participating in greater numbers in production, making them economically independent from men, giving rise to the feminist movement and the demand for equal rights.



Which may be excusable* if the USSR's policies in the prior decade had not been amongst the most progressive in the world. The rolling back of these rights was an undoubted retrograde step for the leader of a supposedly revolutionary party



And it is the USSR's policies in the previous decade that should strike someone as surprising and ahead of their time. They are worthy of discussion, this one isn't.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It makes it natural that these positions weren't at the time appreciated by the whole russian society. There was a period of legalization but basic opinions didn't evidently change.
This is like blaming Marx for using the word Negro or Marx and Engels for laughing at gay men in one of their letters. It was a different era, nothing like we know today. It's as simple as that.

LGBT liberation is not something appreicated by the whole of modern society. It doesn't make it any more right for so-called revolutionaries to take a stance outlawing this.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I think Stalin did it out of the fact that he wanted more control. More power meant restricting freedoms. Once restricted, it was only he who could release them. I believe the idea that he banned it was for labour reasons is absurd.

Any revolutionary who takes the stance of banning homosexuality has no right to call themselves a person of the people or someone fighting for workers. I won't say anything about banning gay marriage, because marriage really is a capitalist concept, which as it is known today, will not exist in the communist tomorrow.

I have a lot of beef with Stalin, and there are many reasons I am hard against him, the banning of homosexuality is one of those reasons, however, his much more authoritarian practices were the main reasons (socialism in one country, purging and deportation to name a few).

Times have changed, stereotypes have become less acceptable. Personally, I don't believe Marx would advocate anything negative against homosexuals no matter how strange he may have seen them, as they were of the proletariat as well.

I will rip off Lenin to end this. Among the gay are the proletariat, and they are the majority. Our brothers and sisters in the fight for socialism. Among the gay are the bourgeoisie -- albeit a minority of bourgeoisie -- who seek to keep exploiting workers be they gay or straight or bi or trans-gendered. They are a fraction of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie for whom the gay worker alongside the straight worker struggle against.

[FSL]

LGBT liberation is not something appreicated by the whole of modern society. It doesn't make it any more right for so-called revolutionaries to take a stance outlawing this.


I think you 'll find conditions for the acceptance of equality have matured quite a bit in the last few decades. Revolutionaries aren't magical all-knowing creatures.

[Pogue]

Because Stalin was a sexist homophobe.

[Radical]

How I love saddos that attack Stalin, Cuba and Lenin for persecuting gays.

They did it because they thought it was a fault of Capitalism.

[bcbm]

How I love saddos that attack Stalin, Cuba and Lenin for persecuting gays.

They did it because they thought it was a fault of Capitalism.

so that makes it okay?

[Pogue]

How I love saddos that attack Stalin, Cuba and Lenin for persecuting gays.

They did it because they thought it was a fault of Capitalism.

That's called homophobia, dear.

By the way Lenin decriminalised homosexuality.

[Lyev]

How I love saddos that attack Stalin, Cuba and Lenin for persecuting gays.

They did it because they thought it was a fault of Capitalism.

...but evidently it's not a fault of capitalism, I see no correlation whatsoever between capitalism and people's sexuality. What's your point?

[Radical]

...but evidently it's not a fault of capitalism, I see no correlation whatsoever between capitalism and people's sexuality. What's your point?

That they were homophobic because they dident know it can be natural.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That they were homophobic because they dident know it can be natural.

What is that got to do with accepting homosexual people and allowing them the freedom to live their life? Honestly what has it being natural got to do with it, should we not let people live a certain way if we think it is somehow 'unnatural'?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That they were homophobic because they dident know it can be natural.

So basically their analysis was no deeper or more unique than any non-leftist garden variety homophobe.

[Radical]

What is that got to do with accepting homosexual people and allowing them the freedom to live their life? Honestly what has it being natural got to do with it, should we not let people live a certain way if we think it is somehow 'unnatural'?

I support Complete equal rights for gays.

However there is also another argument.

Are you advocating complete equal rights for paedofiles(something which is also genetic)

Thats exactly what your saying. Shouldent paedofiles have the complete freedom to live their life and have sex with children?

[ComradeRed22'91]

it doesn't make it ok, god, i'm SiCK of hearing that by now. it makes it understandable. Che said 'che' instead of 'hey' because-that's what people in Argentia said at that time! DUHRRRR THAT MAKES iT OK? HUH? HUH?

[ComradeRed22'91]

...but evidently it's not a fault of capitalism, I see no correlation whatsoever between capitalism and people's sexuality. What's your point?


The point is, we all make mistakes and have misconceptions, at least Stalin's role in history overall was a positive one.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I support Complete equal rights for gays.

However there is also another argument.

Are you advocating complete equal rights for paedofiles(something which is also genetic)

Thats exactly what your saying. Shouldent paedofiles have the complete freedom to live their life and have sex with children?

No I didn't say anything about paedophiles. I said relationships between two consenting parties should not be outlawed because they are supposedly 'unnatural'. It is a weak point simply, as Explosive Situation said it is the stance of any reactionary homophobe.

[ComradeRed22'91]

As much as you would like to believe the perception and overall 'situation' with homosexuality and abortion was just the same then as it is now, it wasn't. we're a radically different society.

[gorillafuck]

As much as you would like to believe the perception and overall 'situation' with homosexuality and abortion was just the same then as it is now, it wasn't. we're a radically different society.
He undid policies that were progressive on homosexuality and abortion. Undid the ones already in effect that were set by Lenin. It's not as if he failed to change anti-homosexuality laws and decriminalize abortion (which I would be able to be more understanding with), he took power when they were already decriminalized and the re-criminalized them.

[rednordman]

What is that got to do with accepting homosexual people and allowing them the freedom to live their life? Honestly what has it being natural got to do with it, should we not let people live a certain way if we think it is somehow 'unnatural'?Im not trying to apologise for anybody or thing here, but we must accept that in the 1930s people really did not have the same outlook and understanding of things that we have now. Afterall all over the world back them homosexuality was very taboo. People where more religious back then even in the Soviet Union, and probably actually did believe that anything thats not straight was not natural as it is supposed to be against the way of god (this is what i have heard and havent actually read it myself i must add). I supposed it may have something to do with the adam and eve story.

Either way it was wrong, But Stalin wasnt the only powerfull person to take such as stance was he?

[Die Rote Fahne]

How I love saddos that attack Stalin, Cuba and Lenin for persecuting gays.

They did it because they thought it was a fault of Capitalism.

Lenin clearly didn't, so did they think he was some sort of homosexual himself? Or was he touched in the head?

**Note:
Saddam Hussein refused to ban homosexuality...just...just a tidbit there out of pure randomness, doesn't really have anything to do with anything but ya.

[Lyev]

I support Complete equal rights for gays.

However there is also another argument.

Are you advocating complete equal rights for paedofiles(something which is also genetic)

Thats exactly what your saying. Shouldent paedofiles have the complete freedom to live their life and have sex with children?

Excuse me? How can you even think about comparing a paedophiles rights to a homosexuals? It's not at all what anyone is saying. Sex between people 2 people above the age of consent, irrelevant of sexuality, is something that is mutual and both people agree to, whereas forced, paedophilic sex with a child is absolutely nothing of the sort.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Im not trying to apologise for anybody or thing here, but we must accept that in the 1930s people really did not have the same outlook and understanding of things that we have now. Afterall all over the world back them homosexuality was very taboo. People where more religious back then even in the Soviet Union, and probably actually did believe that anything thats not straight was not natural as it is supposed to be against the way of god (this is what i have heard and havent actually read it myself i must add). I supposed it may have something to do with the adam and eve story.

Either way it was wrong, But Stalin wasnt the only powerfull person to take such as stance was he?

But as we've already explained Lenin did not outlaw homosexuality. So the 1930's was a different time card doesn't quite work.

[RHIZOMES]

What is that got to do with accepting homosexual people and allowing them the freedom to live their life? Honestly what has it being natural got to do with it, should we not let people live a certain way if we think it is somehow 'unnatural'?

On top of that the idea that non-heterosexual intercourse is "unnatural" is an incredibly psuedoscientific and mystical concept, not something someone adhering to a materialist philosophy should really accept. It's a contradiction.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

On top of that the idea that non-heterosexual intercourse is "unnatural" is an incredibly psuedoscientific and mystical concept, not something someone adhering to a materialist philosophy should really accept. It's a contradiction.

Yes I agree. I was highlighting the weakness of such an argument.

[FSL]

But as we've already explained Lenin did not outlaw homosexuality. So the 1930's was a different time card doesn't quite work.


Maybe you 'll also have to consider changes within the party in that period.

Until 1917 it was a criminal organization that even sympathizing workers would think twice before joining and those that were in already had every right to make obtaining membership difficult to combat possible police infiltration. The well educated professional revolutionaries like Lenin were a much greater percentage in the party than in society itself. As being a bolshevick stopped being a reason for imprisonment, more people joined, people that came from the lower strata of society carrying many of its prejudices.

That seems a quite plausible explanation as to why homosexuality was made legal at such an early time only to be outlawed again later. It's certainly more plausible than assuming gay rights were all-around respected in early 20th century Russia, only to have a "sexist homophobe" dictator change that.

But what makes even more sense to people is accusing Stalin of anything, no matter how stupid the accusation may be, hoping that this way they can discredit the whole of the Soviet Union.

[HEAD ICE]

I support Complete equal rights for gays.

However there is also another argument.

Are you advocating complete equal rights for paedofiles(something which is also genetic)

Thats exactly what your saying. Shouldent paedofiles have the complete freedom to live their life and have sex with children?

:cursing:

Jesus Christ. This is exactly the Fox News style of argumentation:

"Yeah, well, SOME people would say that...."

I find it hard to believe you when you say you support equal rights for gays, and then immediately after you vomit up a trite smear that homophobes have been saying for years. What next, gay people shouldn't get married because it will lead to people marrying their pets?

[Demogorgon]

For much the same reason he undid a lot of the other good advances that had been made perhaps?

At the time he was trying to cosy up to the Orthodox Church as well. Partly because he thought they were better on side than a potential source of dissent and partly because they could stir people up to "patriotically support the fatherland" and so forth. Abortion and Homosexuality were, at least in part, victims of the particular project.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The question is, was it centralized decision making of the dictatorship that outlawed it, or was it a movement by the workers themselves that outlawed it?

I'm sure it's pretty obvious which, but I don't know much about the subject so I'll refrain from bashing a certain historical figure until I get clarification.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I don't think Lenin was the sole person to advocate the legalization of homosexuality and abortions, the Soviet system originally had policies decided democratically by the workers of Russia. If anything this shows the movement from a democratic worker's state to one controlled by reactionary bureaucrats who threw some of the greatest achievements of the Russian revolution out the window.

[Demogorgon]

The question is, was it centralized decision making of the dictatorship that outlawed it, or was it a movement by the workers themselves that outlawed it?

I'm sure it's pretty obvious which, but I don't know much about the subject so I'll refrain from bashing a certain historical figure until I get clarification.
Oh come on. By that stage the workers weren't deciding anything for themselves. All laws were coming right from the top by that point, including the laws in question.

[Andropov]

Posters here do realize that Marx and Engles were complete homophobes also?
Does that mean we should reject their learning because of a certain social conditioning that even Marx and Engels were not immune to?
If your seeking for supporters of Stalin to roundly condemn his homophobic stance, well I roundly condemn it.
But in the greater material context of Stalin and the USSR it is largely irrelevant, im not excusing his actions just putting some perspectve on it.

[Kassad]

Here's something I've definitely changed my opinion on in the last few months. Stalin's reign was, socially speaking, a move to the right. Stalin undid progressive moves towards social rights, such as homosexual liberation and women's liberation as well. The Soviet Union saw massive gains for women that were unheard of not only in Czarist Russia, but also in industrialized Europe. However, the context of the opinion does not necessarily justify it. In National Socialist Germany, the persecution of communists, Jews and many others was seen as 'acceptable.' In pre-Civil War United States, the shackling of Africans was seen as 'acceptable.' Currently in many Islamic countries, persecution, abuse and the veiling of women is seen as 'justified.' Does that make these things right because of the historical context or the current acceptance of these things by the majority of people? Of course not.

The same goes for Stalin's reactionary moves to the right in social perspective. He outlawed abortion and homosexuality. Despite the fact that in historical context, this may have been seen as justified, it is up to as as historical materialists and analysts to see the differing social forces that drive society and to realize that despite historical context, it was backwards for Stalin to make moves to restrict sexual liberation on different fronts. Historical context does not justify social wrongdoings by any means.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've never understood why the Soviet Union undid many of the liberal (with respect to sex and gender) reforms that had been undertaken while Lenin was in power. Was there any legitimate reason for these reforms to be undone or were Stalin and his allies within the bureaucracy just acting like some provincial bigots who wanted more tools with which they could turn the state apparatus against their political enemies?

Much of the anti-gay sentiment I've heard from the left is pseudo-scientific propaganda about bourgeois decadence that comes across as little more than preexisting bigotry wrapped around in a read flag.

Once you unwrap it, it still stinks like shit. It seems to be that Stalin's decision and the subsequent refusal to reliberalize laws and minds is responsible for much of the misogynist and homophobic sentiment that remains in Russia and Eastern Europe.

On the subject of abortion, the regime banned it mainly for the same reasons that China implemented the one-child policy: population control. On this issue for the regime, social conservatism be damned.

[HEAD ICE]

Posters here do realize that Marx and Engles were complete homophobes also?
Does that mean we should reject their learning because of a certain social conditioning that even Marx and Engels were not immune to?
If your seeking for supporters of Stalin to roundly condemn his homophobic stance, well I roundly condemn it.
But in the greater material context of Stalin and the USSR it is largely irrelevant, im not excusing his actions just putting some perspectve on it.

The difference between the homophobia of Marx and of Stalin is that Stalin used state power to repress and actively discriminate against homosexuals.

[narcomprom]

The same with treating LGBTQ individuals is, or at least should be, a given. There were homosexual reforms and reformers in and around Russia at the time, ignorance isn't an excuse. You know as well as I that moralism, blunt reactionary views and popularism were the foundation of Stalin's u-turns. Nothing else.
Don't oversimplify, please.

The Stalin's signed the sodomy laws having received a memo by Yegoda during the purges of 1933.

The law was actively used on the Moscow trials, the army purges or, for instance, to remove Yezhov.

Of course it wasn't about actual homosexuals.

[Andropov]

Here's something I've definitely changed my opinion on in the last few months. Stalin's reign was, socially speaking, a move to the right. Stalin undid progressive moves towards social rights, such as homosexual liberation and women's liberation as well. The Soviet Union saw massive gains for women that were unheard of not only in Czarist Russia, but also in industrialized Europe. However, the context of the opinion does not necessarily justify it. In National Socialist Germany, the persecution of communists, Jews and many others was seen as 'acceptable.' In pre-Civil War United States, the shackling of Africans was seen as 'acceptable.' Currently in many Islamic countries, persecution, abuse and the veiling of women is seen as 'justified.' Does that make these things right because of the historical context or the current acceptance of these things by the majority of people? Of course not.

The same goes for Stalin's reactionary moves to the right in social perspective. He outlawed abortion and homosexuality. Despite the fact that in historical context, this may have been seen as justified, it is up to as as historical materialists and analysts to see the differing social forces that drive society and to realize that despite historical context, it was backwards for Stalin to make moves to restrict sexual liberation on different fronts. Historical context does not justify social wrongdoings by any means.
I agree the historical context is actually largely irrelevant.
But because of his homophobia would you also neglect to recognise his work behind the greatest social leap forward in humanity?
I agree it shouldnt have happened those repressive homophobic laws but in the material context he was enormously progressive.

[Andropov]

The difference between the homophobia of Marx and of Stalin is that Stalin used state power to repress and actively discriminate against homosexuals.
What?
So you think homophobic reactionaryism at the time was irrelevant in Stalins decesion?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Posters here do realize that Marx and Engles were complete homophobes also?
Does that mean we should reject their learning because of a certain social conditioning that even Marx and Engels were not immune to?
If your seeking for supporters of Stalin to roundly condemn his homophobic stance, well I roundly condemn it.
But in the greater material context of Stalin and the USSR it is largely irrelevant, im not excusing his actions just putting some perspectve on it.

And they predated Lenin, but Stalin RE-outlawed it. What was his excuse? Obviously he just wasn't as socially "evolved" as previous revolutionaries, or had ulterior motives which would probably be considered even worse (i.e. stripping rights of political enemies)

[Andropov]

And they predated Lenin, but Stalin RE-outlawed it. What was his excuse? Obviously he just wasn't as socially "evolved" as previous revolutionaries, or had ulterior motives which would probably be considered even worse (i.e. stripping rights of political enemies)
Either of the above is a possibility.
But I fail to see your point?

[ComradeOm]

And it is the USSR's policies in the previous decade that should strike someone as surprising and ahead of their time. They are worthy of discussion, this one isn't.So its okay to discuss the 'good' policies but not the retreat and abandonment of these?


Until 1917 it was a criminal organization that even sympathizing workers would think twice before joining and those that were in already had every right to make obtaining membership difficult to combat possible police infiltration. The well educated professional revolutionaries like Lenin were a much greater percentage in the party than in society itself. As being a bolshevick stopped being a reason for imprisonment, more people joined, people that came from the lower strata of society carrying many of its prejudicesThere are two major problems with this statement. The first is that its factually incorrect - the solid core of the Bolshevik party had always been the militant segments of the proletariat. Perhaps slightly less so at the very beginning of 1917 (when the experienced worker cadres had been broken up by the war) but this was quickly reasserted within months of the February Revolution. To characterise the entire party by its leadership is completely misleading and erroneous

Secondly, what sort of excuse is that? You believe that the Bolsheviks' progressive line in 1917 (it was far more than merely Lenin's opinion) was invalid/unsuited/unsustainable because it contradicted traditional prejudices? Perhaps you similarly consider Lenin a fool for speaking/acting out against pogroms? That the workers (which you assume were the source of such prejudices) flocked to the Bolsheviks despite such policies demonstrates that they found such progressive lines either attractive or of little importance

What is far more likely, with regards Russian sentiment, is that the moves to outlaw homosexuality and divorce rejected not working class attitudes but the traditional prejudices of the peasantry (from which Stalin had himself emerged). This goes hand in hand with the degeneration of the party itself and the rise in bureaucratic, national bolshevik, peasant, etc, members who had little time for revolutionary policies


The question is, was it centralized decision making of the dictatorship that outlawed it, or was it a movement by the workers themselves that outlawed it?By the 1930s any real democratic processes/structures within the Soviet state (or CPSU) were effectively dead. It was not quite the one man show that it would become just a few years later but it is safe to say that the average worker had minimal input into government decisions

[FSL]

...


This is tiring.

First thing, you mixed "surprising" with "good". Odd since these two words look nothing alike.
Secondly, anyone expecting LGBT rights to be realised by a revolution of the early 20th century and everyone to fully embrace these more-than-progressive for that time measures seems to be delusional beyond any chance of help. Anyone considering them a cornerstone for a revolution of that time to be called progressive and overlook other "only slightly" more important matters, like the transformation of the economy, can start naming themselves a champion of gay rights (before even gay people started championing their own rights, such is the flame that burns in that man's heart) but please, stop making a mockery of communism.

Examples of Marx and Engels acting in a "racist" or "homophobic" manner do exist and many are certainly aware but no one is interested in attacking them as sexists or white supremasists. Were they to do such an obviously and painfully naive act, they would lose whatever credibility they may have.
This thread, this "subject" and numerous others just like it are the best "political" arguements people can present to support their version of history. "One man show", "Tyranny", any accusation, relevant or not, reasonable or not, just to prove the devil himself took power and destroyed a revolution that would be doing just fine if the opressors were allowed more freedom.


To run ahead of some overjoyed smart guy, no, gay people weren't the opressors.

[ComradeOm]

First thing, you mixed "surprising" with "good". Odd since these two words look nothing alikeSo what distinction are you making between the two then? Why is it okay to discuss the liberating laws and not the reactionary ones? Because the former were "surprising" while the latter represented the reassertion of traditional prejudices?


Secondly, anyone expecting LGBT rights to be realised by a revolution of the early 20th century and everyone to fully embrace these more-than-progressive for that time measures seems to be delusional beyond any chance of helpExcept for the small matter that they were realised. The October Revolution established a set of laws which, while perhaps falling short of what we might expect today, were hugely progressive for their day. This happened and cannot be swept under the rug. What the OP was asking, and what people are largely condemning,

I've already dealt with your assertion that the Russian workers were somehow unready for these measures. I make no apologies for you finding my reasoning somehow tiring but if you cannot respond to them (instead of blabbling on about Marx, "tyranny", or other red herrings) then don't bother posting

I'm sure that people would be more understanding (probably mistakenly) if the October Revolution had not heralded in such a radically progressive social programme. Then it would be more acceptable to talk about the social challenges, blah blah blah, but such an argument makes no sense when such a progressive regime had already existed for a decade

I say mistaken above because anyone who believes that social freedom or reforms can be divorced (no pun intended) from revolutionary measures in the economic or political spheres is peddling a very un-Marxist line. But then I suspect that your reference to the economy was simply another disingenuous tangent intended to distract attention

[FSL]

Except for the small matter that they were realised.


They obviously weren't realised since the laws were reversed in such a short time.
And yes, discussing about something that merely "reasserts" what was common in that country and pretty much everywhere else in the world seems a bit pointless. Kinda like the "dog bites man" story.
Even more pointless when 90% of those involved don't want to challenge Stalin as a homophobe -quite a shocker if he was- but Soviet Union as a worker's state. At least start with something actually important, give a little credit to your opinions.

[narcomprom]

A passage from Homosexualism: A history of the question by Yuri Fyodorov. Pardon the horrendous translation by google language tools.

The Initiative to repeal anti-gay legislation after the February revolution came from to the Cadets and the anarchists. But the Bolsheviks, not unlike the European left, associated same gender relations with bourgeois decadance and were arrogantly convinced that with the victory of the proletariat in the revolution all sexual perversions (female prostitution included) would disappear by themselves. Nevertheless, after the October revolution in line with with the abolition of the old of the Penal Code the relevant articles were automatically invalidated. In the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922 and 1926 homosexuality as a crime is not mentioned (in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Georgia the relevant laws remained).

However, the formal decriminalization of sodomy does not mean the cessation of prosecutions of homosexuals under the pretense of combating "indecency" and corruption of minors. Thus, in the autumn of 1922, after the publication of a new penal code, held in Petrograd loud the trial of the sailors who gathered in a private apartment, where engaged with each other filthy sexual acts in the nude "(those arrested were aged 22 -- 45 years, ie, adult). As an expert for the prosecution was VM Bechterev. All the defendants were dismissed from the Navy and convicted. (Except for one thing, speaking as a witness, and that probably was an informant of the GPU.) Later, in another case, the prosecution suffered lesbian couple, one of which was illegally changed her name to "Eugenia" in the "Eugene", wore men's clothes , and they refused to submit the request to terminate his actual marriage. Condemned both.

The official position of Soviet medicine and law in the 1920-ies. came to the fact that homosexuality - not a crime, but hard to cure or even a not a curable disease: Understanding the irregularity of the homosexual society imposes, and can not lay the blame for her support of these features. <...> Emphasizing the importance of the sources from which this anomaly is growing, our society is a number of preventive and curative measures creates all necessary conditions to ensure that vital clash homosexuals may have been painless and that the alienation inherent in them, dissolved in a new collective "(16) .
In September 1933 in Moscow and St. Petersburg has been a major raid on persons with different sexual orientations, which resulted in the arrest of 130 people. Stalin in a memo to then-deputy chairman of the OGPU Henry Yagoda reported disclosure in Moscow and Leningrad of several groups who were engaged in "establishing a network of shops, homes, brothels, groups and other organized groups homosexuals with the further transformation of these associations in a straight spy cells".

[ComradeOm]

They obviously weren't realised since the laws were reversed in such a short timeThat makes no sense. LGBT rights did not exist because they were rolled back a decade later? Did the October Revolution establish an extremely progressive legal framework with regards homosexuality and divorce or did it not?

And if we accept that the post-October laws were progressive then their abolishment, in favour of more conservative attitudes, was by definition a backwards or reactionary step. This is true regardless of attitudes at the time* and it is the issue that you've been attempting to dance around

Frankly your entire argument seems to boil down to "Yes, Stalin (or the party or whoever) abolished the divorce, abortion, and homosexual rights but that's okay because Russia was a backwards shithole anyway". Although I do love the irony of then going on to proclaim this to be a "workers' state"!

*Incidentally you've provided nothing to suggest that these prejudices were particularly rampant (instead relying on the assumption that workers, or the "lower strata of society", were simply bigoted) or that there was any popular movement to revoke these laws


And yes, discussing about something that merely "reasserts" what was common in that country and pretty much everywhere else in the world seems a bit pointless. Kinda like the "dog bites man" storyAre you suggesting that a supposedly "workers' state" should be expected to conform to the standards set by contemporary bourgeois regimes? If so it sort've defeats the entire point of revolutionary socialism

[Luís Henrique]

First, a bit of international power natalist policy - needing a huge army to counter foreign aggression, things such as abortions, contraception, or homosexuality look counterproductive.

Second, as Zizek points out, a discretionary regime prefers to forbid everything, and then administer mercy at its will. Or call it blackmail if you prefer.

Third, homophobia was the rule at the time. It would take revolutionaries to confront it, Stalin was no revolutionary.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

First, a bit of international power natalist policy - needing a huge army to counter foreign aggression, things such as abortions, contraception, or homosexuality look counterproductive.

Second, as Zizek points out, a discretionary regime prefers to forbid everything, and then administer mercy at its will. Or call it blackmail if you prefer.

Third, homophobia was the rule at the time. It would take revolutionaries to confront it, Stalin was no revolutionary.

Luís Henrique

Actually, on this one subject it's ironic that Bernstein was a revolutionary!

Anyway, the second point of yours is nothing less than eye-popping.

[rednordman]

But as we've already explained Lenin did not outlaw homosexuality. So the 1930's was a different time card doesn't quite work.Yes but Lenin has proved himself to be far more open minded and forward thinking revolutionary than J Stalin. After all, there wouldnt even have been a soviet union if it wasnt for Lenin.

[Paul Cockshott]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravedigger http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1593394#post1593394)
The short answer is that Stalinist policies undid these freedoms because they wanted to boost production and rebuild a labor force. I don't know the details, but I also believe the USSR leaders went all-out to promote childbirth at this same time and gave "patriotic" awards for women who produced a lot of kids
Its worth putting this into the context of pro-natal policies during the 1930s. With the heightened expectation of war, a number of other countries (including Nazi Germany and France) began to encourage mothers to raise larger families in order to bridge what would today be called the 'demographic gap'. The idea that the power of a nation was linked to its population was nothing new of course but it was the early 20th C when governments actively began to plan/police this

Quote:


Indeed, so one has to ask do some people here think that a socialist state should not have a policy towards population growth?
Or do they think the policy was the wrong one?
Should it have aimed to restrict population growth as the Chinese did from the 70s?

[Paul Cockshott]

Third, homophobia was the rule at the time. It would take revolutionaries to confront it, Stalin was no revolutionary.

Luís Henrique
was not Berstein the marxist who was most progressive on this in the pre WW2 period. No correlation with being revolutionary at all.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

was not Berstein the marxist who was most progressive on this in the pre WW2 period. No correlation with being revolutionary at all.

Tell me this, if there was a revolution which failed to recongise the rights of the gay community, would you as a revolutionary, not confront this?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Tell me this, if there was a revolution which failed to recongise the rights of the gay community, would you as a revolutionary, not confront this?In the back of the day? No, but today it is different. We can now reach information easily thanks to the internet, I was a homophobia back then until I learn a lot to accept them. Even USA are slowly accepting the homosexual demands, in the 70s it was views as phrase and foolish acts, now it is normal excepts for bible-thumper.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

In the back of the day? No, but today it is different. We can now reach information easily thanks to the internet, I was a homophobia back then until I learn a lot to accept them. Even USA are slowly accepting the homosexual demands, in the 70s it was views as phrase and foolish acts, now it is normal excepts for bible-thumper.

But because it was not accepted doesn't make it any more alright.

[Bright Banana Beard]

But because it was not accepted doesn't make it any more alright. It was alright back in the days, but today it is not right. Are you saying I have to go back in time to make it right? We can't. We learned to move on.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It was alright back in the days, but today it is not right. Are you saying I have to go back in time to make it right? We can't. We learned to move on.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying because a certain form of ignorance was accepted in a previous time it does not mean we should accept that ignorance. We should denounce anyone who upheld such an ignorance.

[Intelligitimate]

It appears to me the law against homosexuality was aimed at elements of the former ruling class. Going back as far as Marx and Engels themselves, there was an incorrect tendency to see homosexuality as a form of bourgeois decadence. This error would be repeated by communists again and again until a few decades ago.

It is a sad reality that the communist movement was not friendly to gays originally. These people weren't gods or prophets, and they made mistakes. This is one of them.

[FSL]

That makes no sense. LGBT rights did not exist because they were rolled back a decade later? Did the October Revolution establish an extremely progressive legal framework with regards homosexuality and divorce or did it not?


Are you suggesting that a supposedly "workers' state" should be expected to conform to the standards set by contemporary bourgeois regimes? If so it sort've defeats the entire point of revolutionary socialism
__________________




It established a lack of a legal framework that continued for a little more than a decade. And every society is born "infected" from the previous one.

[Ismail]

As Intelligitimate said, Marxists were by and large against homosexuality. Even as early as 1921 there were plenty of Marxist psychologists and such condemning homosexuality as bourgeois degeneracy, that it was a mental illness, etc. Stalin didn't just suddenly wake up one day and go "Hrm, I'm evil. To commemorate this day of days I'm going to outlaw homosexuality!" There was already a large movement calling homosexuality "repugnant," "anti-Marxist," etc. and homosexuals themselves enjoyed no tolerant conditions outside parts of Moscow and perhaps a few other isolated areas.

I think this is really just a debate between "Homosexuality is essential to the construction of a genuinely Socialist state" and "Homosexuality is mostly irrelevant to the construction of a genuinely Socialist state." Stalin's views on it (have we actually seen Stalin's views on it? Homosexuality was not illegal under Lenin, but it doesn't automatically mean that Lenin thought it was just fine) are just used as a red herring/scapegoat.

[FSL]

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying because a certain form of ignorance was accepted in a previous time it does not mean we should accept that ignorance. We should denounce anyone who upheld such an ignorance.


Anyone who upholds such an ignorant view. Not anyone that upheld that view almost a century back.



. Stalin didn't just suddenly wake up one day and go "Hrm, I'm evil. To commemorate this day of days I'm going to outlaw homosexuality!"


It's funny and a bit scary how so many people seem to think that this is what was happening in pretty much every subject.


"Have I executed anyone today, can't recall... Dear god, I haven't! Quick, get me an order!"

[Il Medico]

Anyone who upholds such an ignorant view. Not anyone that upheld that view almost a century back.
I suppose we shouldn't denounce anyone who back in the day beat and killed blacks in the American south, because back then it was just fine and dandy. :rolleyes:

[Intelligitimate]

Another question we might ask: did outlawing homosexuality prevent anyone who wanted to from engaging in homosexual acts? The answer is almost assuredly not. Even in countries that are recognized as extremely anti-homosexual, homosexuality still goes on almost unchecked. Why, just look at Iran:

http://ramiswall.blogspot.com/2008/10/homosexuality-in-iran-real-encounters.html

Did this in anyway affect the homosexual relationships of Russian peasants and workers? Almost assuredly not.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I suppose we shouldn't denounce anyone who back in the day beat and killed blacks in the American south, because back then it was just fine and dandy. :rolleyes:
There is the different between we accept it and the people back in the day accept it. Let me know you are finish with the time machine.

[Il Medico]

Did this in anyway affect the homosexual relationships of Russian peasants and workers? Almost assuredly not.
It most assuredly did.
People found to be participating in homosexuality were sentenced to up to five years hard labor. I don't know about you, but years of forced labor would make me think twice about coming out about my sexuality. You seem to think that social, and in this case legal, repercussions against homosexuality have no effect on homosexuals. There are many people who don't come out due to social repression and fear of being reject in countries that homosexuality is legal. So imagine how much worse this is in a country where it is illegal. Or in short, you are full of shit.

[FSL]

I suppose we shouldn't denounce anyone who back in the day beat and killed blacks in the American south, because back then it was just fine and dandy. :rolleyes:


Yes, it would be rather stupid. As it is stupid when people talk of founding fathers owning slaves. As it is stupid being unable to grasp the concept of "anachronism".


You 're free to denounce racism today though. You know, if you hold any contact with reality.

[Il Medico]

There is the different between we accept it and the people back in the day accept it. Let me know you are finish with the time machine.
So you are say that we shouldn't condemn him because there was no possible way that ignorant revolutionaries back then could put their prejudices aside and not criminalize an entire group of people? Well, that make his actions even worse. So yes, Stalin was most likely a bigot, and so also was Lenin most likely. The difference is that Lenin uses his power and influence to insure that we were not criminally liable for our sexuality despite whatever prejudices he may or may not have had. Stalin, on the other hand, chose to use his power and influence to retract revolutionary polices base on his personal bigotry.

Also, could a mod or admin move this to discrimination? I think the current discussion is better suited for there.
Thanks.

[FSL]

So you are say that we shouldn't condemn him because there was no possible way that ignorant revolutionaries back then could put their prejudices aside and not criminalize an entire group of people? Well, that make his actions even worse. So yes, Stalin was most likely a bigot, and so also was Lenin most likely. The difference is that Lenin uses his power and influence to insure that we were not criminally liable for our sexuality despite whatever prejudices he may or may not have had. Stalin, on the other hand, chose to use his power and influence to retract revolutionary polices base on his personal bigotry.

Also, could a mod or admin move this to discrimination? I think the current discussion is better suited for there.
Thanks.


You do understand that were you alive then and there, you would in all probablility spend every moment of your life hating yourself and your "disease"?

[Il Medico]

You do understand that were you alive then and there, you would in all probablility spend every moment of your life hating yourself and your "disease"?
And there are people to this day that still do. However, states have quite a bit of power, when a state endorse a certain form of discrimination it helps keep this way of thinking in the forefront. When a state no longer supports this (at least officially) progressive forces may gains and that form of bigotry loses ground. The legalization of homosexuality lasted twelve years in the USSR. Had the Civil Rights bill been retracted in 1976 there is no doubt that American society would be far more racist than it is today. When a state is against a certain group and therefore the ruling class and the forces of capital are against it, organizations struggling to free themselves make much less progress. (ie Over 100 years of sanctioned racism= little progress for Civil right for black, lack of official state support for last 40 years= much larger gains.) Had Stalin for gone his personal bigotry, the USSR and Russia today would not be as homophobic nearly as they are.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stalin was homophobic, as was much of society back then.

Instead of trying to educate the public using science and raising public awareness, Stalin decided to go with the popular mood.
Ironic that the time it seemed Stalin did go with the overwhelmingly popular mood he was wrong.

[Il Medico]

You do understand that were you alive then and there, you would in all probablility spend every moment of your life hating yourself and your "disease"?
And having a supposedly progressive state make my sexuality illegal is defiantly going to make me more comfortable with it. :rolleyes:

(sorry for responding to this twice, just could really see how I could fit this in with my other point)

[FSL]

And there are people to this day that still do. However, states have quite a bit of power, when a state endorse a certain form of discrimination it helps keep this way of thinking in the forefront. When a state no longer supports this (at least officially) progressive forces may gains and that form of bigotry loses ground. The legalization of homosexuality lasted twelve years in the USSR. Had the Civil Rights bill been retracted in 1976 there is no doubt that American society would be far more racist than it is today. When a state is against a certain group and therefore the ruling class and the forces of capital are against it, organizations struggling to free themselves make much less progress. (ie Over 100 years of sanctioned racism= little progress for Civil right for black, lack of official state support for last 40 years= much larger gains.) Had Stalin for gone his personal bigotry, the USSR and Russia today would not be as homophobic nearly as they are.


States don't exist independently of other conditions, what shapes other ideas will shape them as well. Gay people in western societies of today might still be uncomfortable with themselves but it's a fair assumption that this was much more so the reality back then. One could hold state responsible for not acting differently now but if you can't be sure you 'd have the same stance at that time, I can't see how you hold other individuals accountable.
I reckon this is just a pretext for some -most here- but an especially touchy subject for others. A genuinely "acceptable" answer probably doesn't exist for them in the same manner native americans can't be expected to come to terms with why they were almost extinct.



Stalin was homophobic, as was much of society back then.

Instead of trying to educate the public using science and raising public awareness, Stalin decided to go with the popular mood.
Ironic that the time it seemed Stalin did go with the overwhelmingly popular mood he was wrong.


At that time science classified it as a disease. At least, western science did. There wasn't a knowledge of fountain available for everyone that people would just not use.

[FSL]

And having a supposedly progressive state make my sexuality illegal is defiantly going to make me more comfortable with it. :rolleyes:

(sorry for responding to this twice, just could really see how I could fit this in with my other point)



In that situation, you and people thinking like you would have the state repress that abomination. You are bringing today back then, things were different. Women needed decades for voting rights and centuries, we 'll see how many, for equal pay. It was not just or alright but it was.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

At that time science classified it as a disease. At least, western science did. There wasn't a knowledge of fountain available for everyone that people would just not use.

So why was the law relating to homosexuality originally relaxed? Surely there must have been knowledge, amonst informed socialist circles, that homosexuality was not unnatural or a disease.

[hugsandmarxism]

Why did he do it? I don't know. It could very well have been influenced by homophobia on the part of ole Uncle Joe, and for that, I'd support a bare-bottomed spanking in the public square for pushing such a prejudice onto society through the legal system. Perhaps it was a case of "you can take the boy out of the seminary school but not take the seminary school out of the boy." I don't know... I was never under the illusion that everything Josef Stalin did was in the right, and I certainly don't believe that outlawing homosexuality and abortion are in the right at all. Or excusable. So for that, I'm going to have to give Josef Stalin a demerit.

I also have to disagree with some of the assertions made in this thread that the times justified this position. It is certainly true that events in history don't exist in a vacuum, but simply because there was a dominating societal prejudice that these actions conform to doesn't make them excusable.

But I will say that in order to divorce ourselves from a comic-bookish historical perspective built to furnish this or that political perspective, we need to soberly examine the situation, and assess it for the various dynamics at work.

The first dynamic we should consider is the personal dynamic, or to put it bluntly, Stalin being homophobic. As I previously alluded to, Stalin was born and raised into a family situation characterized by religious reaction, and as we all know from those who fly a red flag and end up in this site's OI, old prejudices die hard. As much as we rebel against our socialization, try to break away from the consciousness that being born into our society bestows upon us from a young age, we aren't always entirely successful. If it is the case that Stalin was a homophobe, that he wasn't able to break away from this incorrect thinking, then I'd have to say I'm quite disappointed in his weakness there.

The second dynamic we may consider is whether (regardless of the implications of the first dynamic) this came about in response to societal pressures in the Soviet Union, from both within the party and from the proletariat. Consider how Stalin was forced to take a softer line on the Russian Orthodox church during World War 2. In such a time of bloodshed, hunger and despair, it probably didn't make sense to be as much of a hard-ass on that particular source of ignorance and reaction. Is it possible that during the 1930's, when soviet workers were put to the task of massive industrialization and agricultural reform, Stalin felt he had to play to the reactionary attitudes of Soviet citizens in order to appease them in this time of great sacrifice? I think it might be, and I think that such shameless political maneuvering is doesn't excuse ceding grounds to the forces of reaction, but again, I think it's an understandable course of action.

To understand isn't to excuse. As a communist, I believe in absolute bodily autonomy of women, and the absolute right for consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual activity they damn well please. I also believe, however, is that the prejudices and mistakes of historical figures don't have any significant say in how we evaluate theory, and don't necessarily warrant the dismissal of an entire historical epoch. I'm sure that at this point, the communist and anarchist movements have put the homosexuality and abortion issues to bed, so this debate is entirely a historical one, so I think that this should be moved to history, and be left to collect dust like every other Stalin thread.

[Glenn Beck]

Sure is a lot of confusion between excuses and explanations in here...

[FSL]

The second dynamic we may consider is whether (regardless of the implications of the first dynamic) this came about in response to societal pressures in the Soviet Union, from both within the party and from the proletariat. Consider how Stalin was forced to take a softer line on the Russian Orthodox church during World War 2. In such a time of bloodshed, hunger and despair, it probably didn't make sense to be as much of a hard-ass on that particular source of ignorance and reaction. Is it possible that during the 1930's, when soviet workers were put to the task of massive industrialization and agricultural reform, Stalin felt he had to play to the reactionary attitudes of Soviet citizens in order to appease them in this time of great sacrifice? I think it might be, and I think that such shameless political maneuvering is doesn't excuse ceding grounds to the forces of reaction, but again, I think it's an understandable course of action.



The state never took a harder line on the church either, the church was and remained neutral. Party members that went as far as "removing bells from temples" were rightly criticized in Dizzy with Success. Any religious person could pray before living for the war in WW2 just as they should.
You can have people talking about maneuvers and you can have the Vatican sentencing Soviet Union in hell, with every side looking at the part of the picture they prefer.
The whole "bourgeois decadence" scheme that predates Stalin or Lenin seems more of an attempt to rationalize a prejudice rather than a well thought out, objective opinion. These exist to this day and were more prevalent then. People can chase their tales indefinitely with words like "excusable", "expected", "sensible", or use the same words in a different tone or with more emphasis but I do believe that anyone forming a negative opinion based on that goes way past where they should.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed, so one has to ask do some people here think that a socialist state should not have a policy towards population growth?
Or do they think the policy was the wrong one?
Should it have aimed to restrict population growth as the Chinese did from the 70s?

I think it has more to do with the specifics than with the policy per se. Per Gravedigger's very informative post, the context of looming war could have necessitated additional welfare benefits for giving birth. Instead of banning abortion outright, just boost the benefits a tad more.

The "one child" policy in China is exactly this. It doesn't force abortions, but it does deny benefits to those with children who don't abort additional infants.

Unfortunately, the entire Stalin era was one of "socialist" primitive accumulation, screwing workers of half their wages and didn't develop the welfare benefits regime much (that was left to the Khrushchev era and beyond). :(

[Paul Cockshott]

I don't think Lenin was the sole person to advocate the legalization of homosexuality and abortions, the Soviet system originally had policies decided democratically by the workers of Russia. If anything this shows the movement from a democratic worker's state to one controlled by reactionary bureaucrats who threw some of the greatest achievements of the Russian revolution out the window.
This shows an excessive faith in Soviet Democracy. The system was overwhelmingly dominated by the Bolsheviks at the higher levels within months of the revolution.

[Paul Cockshott]

Tell me this, if there was a revolution which failed to recongise the rights of the gay community, would you as a revolutionary, not confront this?
The issues of gay rights and communist revolution are orthogonal.

[Paul Cockshott]

I think it has more to do with the specifics than with the policy per se. Per Gravedigger's very informative post, the context of looming war could have necessitated additional welfare benefits for giving birth. Instead of banning abortion outright, just boost the benefits a tad more.

The "one child" policy in China is exactly this. It doesn't force abortions, but it does deny benefits to those with children who don't abort additional infants.

Unfortunately, the entire Stalin era was one of "socialist" primitive accumulation, screwing workers of half their wages and didn't develop the welfare benefits regime much (that was left to the Khrushchev era and beyond). :(
The general point is that one can never dissociate the juridical forms of a society from its economic and military conditions of the day.
The general pro natalist movement in the 30s in Europe has to be understood in the context of the huge loss of males of reproductive age during the Great War along with the general recognition that another such war was likely in the future.

[Intelligitimate]

It most assuredly did.
People found to be participating in homosexuality were sentenced to up to five years hard labor. I don't know about you, but years of forced labor would make me think twice about coming out about my sexuality. You seem to think that social, and in this case legal, repercussions against homosexuality have no effect on homosexuals. There are many people who don't come out due to social repression and fear of being reject in countries that homosexuality is legal. So imagine how much worse this is in a country where it is illegal. Or in short, you are full of shit.

The only person full of shit is yourself. American anti-sodomy are still on the books in many places, and it doesn't actually mean anything. No one is charged with this stuff. There aren't anti-sodomy detectives running around trying to catch people breaking this law. The prisons aren't jammed packed with people accused of being "sodomites." Hell, even in places like Iran, the cops ignore this shit when women accuse their husbands of being homosexuals.

The USSR wasn't some liberal utopia where homosexuals would be accepted by all of society and celebrated as part of human diversity. No one fucking thinks the USSR was a perfect utopia. But did it actively persecute homosexuals, in the way some states have past and present? No.

If you wanna denounce the USSR for that, you're just engaging in sheer idealistic utopian bullshit. It's one thing to say this was a failing of the USSR, which it was. It's another to think this one feature should define how we should look at the USSR in a historical context.

[Luís Henrique]

So why was the law relating to homosexuality originally relaxed? Surely there must have been knowledge, amonst informed socialist circles, that homosexuality was not unnatural or a disease.

Erm, no. Normally people don't regard diseases as something to be punished as a crime. So probably the Bolsheviks who repealed the anti-homosexual laws of the Czarist Empire thought it was unnatural or a disease; they just didn't see the point of police repression of a disease - much less of a disease that isn't contagious nor lethal.

And certainly Stalin didn't regard homosexuality as a disease; he regarded it as a "symptom of bourgeois decadence"; and, more, he thought that he could suppress "bourgeois decadence" by erradicating its epiphenomena...

That's because Stalinism isn't a retrogression on the issue of homosexuality alone. It was a retrogression on all the line; not only from the idea that homosexuality was a disease to the idea that homosexuality was a vice, but from the idea that diseased of addicted people should be treated humanely to the idea that those things should be solved through violence, from the idea that social phenomena have material causes that should be addressed to the idea that they are the product of character flaws of individuals, etc, etc, etc, and a long line of etc.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Indeed, so one has to ask do some people here think that a socialist state should not have a policy towards population growth?
Or do they think the policy was the wrong one?
Should it have aimed to restrict population growth as the Chinese did from the 70s?

Yes, it was wrong to have a population growth program carried out FROM ABOVE just as it is wrong for China to put population growth policies in FROM ABOVE.

Their birth-policies had little to do with what the population needed or desired. In Russia, it was about building socialism in one country on the backs of the working class just as capitalist industrialization forcibly "encouraged" peasants to move to urban centers and later promoted the family unit as the way to take care of workers (as opposed to programs for housing and childcare). If Russia was to industrialize in order to compete with industrial powers, it needed a large generation of workers - particularly after WWI, civil war, famine and so on.

If a worker's society needs to intervene in population growth, it should be handled democratically and on a voluntary basis with some kind of incentive offered if necessary. In addition if there is a successful socialist revolution, then there would not be economic competition between the socialist areas and remaining capitalist countries and therefore, population is not as essential as far having a pool of labor to exploit.

[lin biao fan club]

It is important to remember that at the time abortion was associated with eugenics. In fact, Planned Parenthood was originally a eugenics outfit more than a feminist one. Historically, abortion has been used by oppressor nations to lower the populations of oppressed nations. The outlawing of abortion was most likely tied to anti-racist, anti-eugenics efforts. Remember that the Soviets were pushing against eugenics as eugenics was reaching the height of its influence in Britain, Germany, and the USA.

[Paul Cockshott]

It is important to remember that at the time abortion was associated with eugenics. In fact, Planned Parenthood was originally a eugenics outfit more than a feminist one. Historically, abortion has been used by oppressor nations to lower the populations of oppressed nations. The outlawing of abortion was most likely tied to anti-racist, anti-eugenics efforts. Remember that the Soviets were pushing against eugenics as eugenics was reaching the height of its influence in Britain, Germany, and the USA.
That is an interesting aspect

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It is important to remember that at the time abortion was associated with eugenics. In fact, Planned Parenthood was originally a eugenics outfit more than a feminist one. Historically, abortion has been used by oppressor nations to lower the populations of oppressed nations. The outlawing of abortion was most likely tied to anti-racist, anti-eugenics efforts. Remember that the Soviets were pushing against eugenics as eugenics was reaching the height of its influence in Britain, Germany, and the USA.

So would you tie Lenin to the pro-racism, pro-eugenics movement for initially liberalising the laws on abortion?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Pogue]

Up to the 70's and 80's working class heroes (from anarchist perspective) like Ronald Reagan were pro-choice. The reason why conservatives were pro-choice was not because they were "progressive". They just did not want the working class rabble to have too many babies. It is only after the religious fundamentalists started being a big part of the Republicans somewhere during Reagan's run for Presidency, I think, did the party bosses change their colors with regard to abortion. This also resulted in a split of the Catholic vote.

Just being pro-choice does not mean that someone is totally a progressive. In fact, up to a few decades ago, most arch-conservatives were pro-choice, for example, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Later_life).

I'm not saying Stalin was right in outlawing these things (he was wrong on this issue), but there are always economic, ideological and social factors that influence such decisions.

Anarcho-Reaganism! :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

This should be understood in the context of the rapid rise of conservative trends within Russian politics beginning in the 1920s with the defeat of the workers' movements in Europe. Socialism could not be built in one country, and a society that could not surpass capitalism economically also couldn't surpass it socially or culturally. Hence the one-by-one adoption by the Soviet bureaucracy of each of the backward cultural and social values of the bourgeoisie at the time.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Whichever way you look at it, Stalin was wrong to outlaw homosexuality and abortion. He could possibly have been excused if he was in the position of continuing to outlaw said activities, but the fact that, after the Bolshevik's leading ideologue - Lenin - had liberalised the laws regarding hoosexuality and abortion, Stalin decided to renounce this liberalisation, leaves Stalin in an inexcusable position.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Up to the 70's and 80's working class heroes (from anarchist perspective) like Ronald Reagan were pro-choice.

What are you talking about?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[blake 3:17]

The only person full of shit is yourself. American anti-sodomy are still on the books in many places, and it doesn't actually mean anything.

The laws shouldn't exist. They do mean something. As I can gather, they're unenforceable laws, but still they exist.

Anachronistic punitive laws need to be gotten rid of entirely. For political radicals, these laws are especially dangerous -- enforcement is arbitrary and politically motiviated, and pick on the marginalized and oppressed.