The Russian Left and Gay Rights

[Kowalski]

Thanks for welcoming to all you, comrades =)

2Sentinel
The main thing of our disapproving of CPRF is their national-patriotic, reformist politics and some other things like these. Their anti-revolution, pro-imperial, pro-church, sometimes antisemitic (covered by "antizionist" phraseology) positions, etc.

But the topic of the sexual minorities, that is important for a part of comrades in Europe and America is absolutely uninteresting for us. Surely we don't go for beating them, but we don't defend them too. It's their own private life and let them do what they want in their private life. But the majority of us does not think that gays' demonstration is smth good.
No one here in Russia oppress their private life - "do what you want!" - but to demonstrate one's sexuality on public - it's not very good, and we need not here any kind of these demonstrations, whether it is gays' or zoophs' or anyone like them. And we don't think leftist must defend these demonstrations, because leftists must defend oppressed working people, oppressed working class' youth to which belongs the majority of students and pupils, etc., we must struggle for social revolution.

But the gays, these glam-styled bourgeois people from luxury night clubs - they aren't revolutionary or even a little progressive force, they aren't oppressed, they aren't toiling - we surely don't need to distract from our struggle to their sexual PR-shows. I'll repeat - no one prevent them to live like they want in their expensive clubs and own houses (at the expense of the truly oppressed majority of people...)

Maybe in Europe there's other situation, but for us - we are just on the parallel lines and haven't any intersections with this topic. We have a lot of more important tasks...

(I don't want to offend anybody, take my words easy please)

And what about the Russian forum - yeah, it'll be interesting to invite here more comrades, I'll try =)

[Sentinel]

But the topic of the sexual minorities, that is important for a part of comrades in Europe and America is absolutely uninteresting for us.


I take it you are straight?


No one here in Russia oppress their private life - "do what you want!" - but to demonstrate one's sexuality on public - it's not very good

Of course, straight people demonstrate their sexuality in public, all the time, as the most natural thing in the world. It sounds to me like it should be their privilege according to you?


whether it is gays' or zoophs' or anyone like them.

Do you not see this comparison as insulting at all?


And we don't think leftist must defend these demonstrations, because leftists must defend oppressed working people, oppressed working class' youth to which belongs the majority of students and pupils, etc., we must struggle for social revolution.

But the gays, these glam-styled bourgeois people from luxury night clubs - they aren't revolutionary or even a little progressive force, they aren't oppressed, they aren't toiling - we surely don't need to distract from our struggle to their sexual PR-shows. I'll repeat - no one prevent them to live like they want in their expensive clubs and own houses (at the expense of the truly oppressed majority of people...)


I'm getting an impression from your post that you see homosexuality as some kind of phenomenon that only affects the bourgeois class. Moreover you seem to think it is some a perversion or a fetish rather than an attribute.

Is that your position, and if so, what exactly do you base it upon (as it sure as fuck isn't scientific research)?



Maybe in Europe there's other situation, but for us - we are just on the parallel lines and haven't any intersections with this topic. We have a lot of more important tasks...


Indeed, most leftist organisations here fight for equality for all, and the empowerment of all workers, not only straight ones.

[scarletghoul]

Its a common phenomenon that homosexuality is seen as a 'bourgeois decadence', sometimes western decadence, particularly in poorer countries and communities. This is why for example there's so much homophobia in black america, and many third world revolutions have took homophobic positions.

Of course it's not true at all; I know quite a few working class gays. Perhaps the misconception comes from the fact that bourgeoisie are more able to be open with it. And certainly the prominant "gay culture" in the west has a lot of consumerist crap and ideology attatched to it.. But make no mistake Kowalski, many working class people are actually gay. Its not a sexual condition that arises from capitalist decadence or whatever; some people are just gay. (plus, homophobic language will likely get you banned from hree pretty quick, and that would be a shame)

[Kowalski]

I think it'll be better to discuss this in scecial topic, won't it?
Straight... what is it?

I don't think homosexuality affects only bourgeoisie, I told that we need not to defend these glamour demonstrations. I don't see if they are oppressed in life. I don't see whom to defend among them. We must defend all workers, of course, and if in strike for example would participate some gays we will defend them as others. Because of strike participating, not because of sexual orientation which isn't interesting for us.


(about "gays and zoophs") Do you not see this comparison as insulting at all?
Excuse me if that. But I really don't see if one thing is better or worse than other...
Yes, I think both are perversions like some other. And yes, we'll defend these people if they will be oppressed because of anticapitalist struggle, like any other people. It doesn't matter for us what kind of partner they prefer, the only important thing is are they oppressed by capitalists or not, are they participating in anticap struggle or not.
It's an equality.

I don't walk on streets with a banner "I wanna a girl!!111" :blink: and I don't understand anybody who will walk with banners like this one, it doesn't matter about a girl or a boy, or about chains, lashes and straps. I think it's silly. Because no one prevent me to look for a girl and no one prevent them to look for anybody or anything they want. It's not a problem :confused: I'm not "phobic" on all this, I'm just indifferent.

And I'm not interested in that topic at all, whether it'll be admitted as a perversion or not, it really doesn't matter for me, but if you are so interested in my IMHO we can discuss it in the correspond topic, ok? :)

And please don't take it very hard. I prefer to tell what I think without diplomatic quirks even if it's not a pleasure for somebody, I don't want to hurt but I don't want to lie too, OK?

[Jazzratt]

I think it'll be better to discuss this in scecial topic, won't it?

I'll split it once we've decided whether you'll be banned or not.


I don't see if they are oppressed in life. I don't see whom to defend among them. We must defend all workers, of course, and if in strike for example would participate some gays we will defend them as others. Because of strike participating, not because of sexual orientation which isn't interesting for us.

Maybe sexual orientation isn't interesting to you but it's one hell of a fucking big deal to a lot of people. Claiming that no one cares about or opresses homosexuals means you have either been in a coma for most of human history or you're deliberately trying to belittle the problems people face because you're a prick.


Excuse me if that. But I really don't see if one thing is better or worse than other...

Well then you're fucked up. Homosexuality is perfectly normal whereas most zoophiles are mental.


Yes, I think both are perversions like some other. And yes, we'll defend these people if they will be oppressed because of anticapitalist struggle, like any other people. It doesn't matter for us what kind of partner they prefer, the only important thing is are they oppressed by capitalists or not, are they participating in anticap struggle or not.
It's an equality.

The thing is that homosexuals and other minority like this aren't exclusively the victims of class oppression. There is very real sexual oppression in addition to capitalist oppression. If you think a straight worker and a gay worker or a white worker and a black worker are equally oppressed then you are tottally bloody doolally.


I don't walk on streets with a banner "I wanna a girl!!111" :blink: and I don't understand anybody who will walk with banners like this one, it doesn't matter about a girl or a boy, or about chains, lashes and straps. I think it's silly. Because no one prevent me to look for a girl and no one prevent them to look for anybody or anything they want.

Look, I don't know whether you're denying reality or are genuinely as ignorant a cockshaft as you appear but what you're saying is absolutely not the case. No one is preventing you from getting a girlfriend (except, I imagine yourself) bbut the same does not hold true for a lesbian. When you go to a club to pick up chicks what chance is there of you being nail bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Duncan_pub)? I can garuntee it is several degrees of magnitude less than if you went to a gay club. That's an extreme example I'll admit, but similar shit happens all the fucking time; gay men and women in a lot of places in the world (and yes Russia is one of them) have to live in fear of their fucking lives so all this toss about "no one prevent them to look for anybody or anything they want" is just a basket of shit and lies.


And please don't take it very hard. I prefer to tell what I think without diplomatic quirks even if it's not a pleasure for somebody, I don't want to hurt but I don't want to lie too, OK?

No. I think it's great we can see the evil festering mound of bollocks that comprise your views. It's refreshing that you're so honest about being such a raging, yeasty otter's lovehole.

[gorillafuck]

I'll split it once we've decided whether you'll be banned or not.
Because banning him would be a great way to make him realize that fighting against oppression of gays matters.

[Kowalski]

Maybe you will not use unprintable words against me?
I try to talk correctly even if I think not like you on some topic.

Well, If you want to ban me for it, directly at the beginning when I want to acquaintance with comrades from other countries, so go on. Do it. I can only tell that I'm surprised a little by all it. Perhaps if somebody don't fight for the gays then s/he isn't a communist or a left at all in your opinion. OK. I'll know it in future. Good bye.

[Sentinel]

While Jazzratt does use powerful language, his points are spot on and you should address them. We do also have rules against discriminatory opinions being posted here, so his warning about possible administrative action is not unfounded. These rules exist not to 'punish' users with reactionary positions, but as a tool to enable a progressive discussion atmosphere.

Moreover, they exist because if we have to choose we do not take the comfort and the feelings of the offender, but the victim in consideration. Please also address this:


Straight... what is it?

Straight means heterosexual, ie the opposite of homosexual. In other words, what I said earlier was: Of course, heterosexual people demonstrate their sexuality in public, all the time, as the most natural thing in the world. It sounds to me like it should be their privilege according to you?

By which I mean that a man and a woman may for example kiss or hold hands publically without anyone paying attention (well, certain fundamentalist theocracies excluded obviously, but in most countries this is the case). A gay couple doing this instantly risks abuse and even violence directed towards them.

This is a fact, and queer rights organisations exist in order to change it. Most of the modern western revolutionary left has realised it is necessary to support this struggle if they are to claim that they truly strive after an equal society -- after all, it's an undeniable fact that a very large percentage of the general population (regardless of class) is queer.

It is also commonly accepted as a fact nowadays that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but an attribute a person is either born with, or gains early in childhood. Ie, once more, not a choice any more than ones skin color is.

If you oppose racism, how can you permit homophobia? And if you oppose the church, why not oppose homophobia which is a legacy of the influence of religious superstition?

Queer pride parades, which you seem to especially object to, are a political protest against the state of affairs -- we're not proud of being gay per se, but rather claim the right to be proud of ourselves as the next person, as heterosexuals can take for granted that they can be.

Tired of the society's ignorance some choose to wear extreme outfits etc to provoke a reaction and give publicity to the issue -- what does it matter to you unless you are homophobic? It certainly shouldn't at all.

[#FF0000]

There are tons of working class gay and transgender people who are workers just the same and aren't "glam-styled bourgeois" folks, and who face a lot of discrimination in their own working class communities for being gay. don't you think this is something that should be fought against?

[Left-Reasoning]

Homosexuality is perfectly normal whereas most zoophiles are mental.

What's wrong with zoophilia?

[#FF0000]

What's wrong with zoophilia?

Let's keep this on topic now. Honestly.

[Publius]

Thanks for welcoming to all you, comrades =)

2Sentinel
The main thing of our disapproving of CPRF is their national-patriotic, reformist politics and some other things like these. Their anti-revolution, pro-imperial, pro-church, sometimes antisemitic (covered by "antizionist" phraseology) positions, etc.

But the topic of the sexual minorities, that is important for a part of comrades in Europe and America is absolutely uninteresting for us.

Let's compare the advances of the civil rights movement to those of the revolutionary left in the last century and see which side we'd want to cast our lot with.



Surely we don't go for beating them, but we don't defend them too.

"Sure we don't go around beating blacks, but we don't defend them either"

:rolleyes:



It's their own private life and let them do what they want in their private life. But the majority of us does not think that gays' demonstration is smth good.
No one here in Russia oppress their private life - "do what you want!" - but to demonstrate one's sexuality on public - it's not very good, and we need not here any kind of these demonstrations, whether it is gays' or zoophs' or anyone like them. And we don't think leftist must defend these demonstrations, because leftists must defend oppressed working people, oppressed working class' youth to which belongs the majority of students and pupils, etc., we must struggle for social revolution.

Iran had a social revolution and they hate gays.

Maybe you should move there.



But the gays, these glam-styled bourgeois people from luxury night clubs - they aren't revolutionary or even a little progressive force, they aren't oppressed, they aren't toiling - we surely don't need to distract from our struggle to their sexual PR-shows. I'll repeat - no one prevent them to live like they want in their expensive clubs and own houses (at the expense of the truly oppressed majority of people...)

Yeah, usually the most powerful capitalists are flamboyant gays at "expensive clubs".

[Publius]

I think it'll be better to discuss this in scecial topic, won't it?
Straight... what is it?

[quote]
I don't think homosexuality affects only bourgeoisie, I told that we need not to defend these glamour demonstrations. I don't see if they are oppressed in life. I don't see whom to defend among them. We must defend all workers, of course, and if in strike for example would participate some gays we will defend them as others. Because of strike participating, not because of sexual orientation which isn't interesting for us.

Sexual orientation is just as important to civil rights as religious, ethnic, or social orientation is.

Just because the left is anti-religion and anti-racialist doesn't mean it shouldn't go out of its way to defend repressed religious and cultural minorities.

Sure, from the leftist perspective there's no difference between Irish people and anyone else. But back when there was significant discrimination against Irish people, it was in the left's interest to defend them.



Excuse me if that. But I really don't see if one thing is better or worse than other...
Yes, I think both are perversions like some other.

Homosexuality is not a perversion.


And yes, we'll defend these people if they will be oppressed because of anticapitalist struggle, like any other people. It doesn't matter for us what kind of partner they prefer, the only important thing is are they oppressed by capitalists or not, are they participating in anticap struggle or not.
It's an equality.

Like I said, you could use this "logic" to argue against any civil rights movement.



I don't walk on streets with a banner "I wanna a girl!!111" :blink: and I don't understand anybody who will walk with banners like this one, it doesn't matter about a girl or a boy, or about chains, lashes and straps. I think it's silly. Because no one prevent me to look for a girl and no one prevent them to look for anybody or anything they want. It's not a problem :confused: I'm not "phobic" on all this, I'm just indifferent.

So you find it odd that repressed people might hold demonstrations or rallies?

[Demogorgon]

Should heterosexual people be allowed to manifest their orientation in public?

[Obrero Rebelde]

Damn, I thought those Russian commies had come to their senses long ago and repudiated the "homosexuality comes from bourgeois decadence" shit. What long abandoned drunk tank of Krushchev's USSR did they drag you out of, Kowalski? :mad:

How is it that in the Imperialist West, we have more scientific understanding of human sexuality as compared to Russia and many in the under-developed countries?

If bourgeois decadence explains visibility of homosexuality in society, I guess we're as screwed as we are liberated? We ARE everywhere, but we are most visible in the USA.

I know from Cuban comrades that the masses in Cuba once believed the Soviet line (AND LIE) about homosexuality and bourgeois decadence. They pointed out that, if all the masses of people ever see as "gay" are the glamor-groping aspirants of bourgeois lifestyles of the rich and famous in pre-revolutionary Cuba, it's no wonder the people think that's what gay is all about. They saw male hustlers and drag prostitutes vying for U.S. dollars in the streets, belittling their national sensitivities about dignity and not being whores to U.S. Imperialism by begging to be "taken" by U.S. business executives and government bureaucrats vacationing on the island playgrounds of pre-socialist Cuba.

Mao once said decades ago that there were no homosexuals in China, and Black nationalists everywhere once declared homosexuality to be a "white man's disease."

Well, there are Chinese queers cropping up all over China, and Ru Paul isn't the only Black man who's come out of the closet screaming for freedom.

I'm find Kowalski's thread here to be very telling.

Tell us you're stupid and blind to reality, Kowalski. At least your ignorance should absolve you of your trespasses against 10% of the world's population. We may be a minority, but we are EVERYwhere. For all you know, someone in your family is a queer.

[Left-Reasoning]

Let's keep this on topic now. Honestly.

I would like to but this is the second time this has happened.

A user makes a comment on homosexuality being some form of mental disorder and equates it to necrophilia or bestiality and then someone swoops in and claims that they are offending homosexuals by comparing them to necrophiliacs/zoophiles which, they claim, are truly deranged.

Why can't we just accept that different people have different sexual preferences? Some people like men, some people like women, some people like horses and some people like dead bodies. Necrophiliacs and zoophiles are NOT sub-human and there is NOT something wrong with them.

[Soviet]

The purpose of sex is the procreation, the continuation of the human race,it is the norm.
Have you any children, gays and gentlemen? If not, then your orientation is unnatural.You need a treatment, and if it is not treated then do not expose your perversion on display.
To equalize the pathology and the norm - what a r-r-revolutionary,indeed!

[Left-Reasoning]

The purpose of sex is the procreation, the continuation of the human race,

Who says so? Do you have a problem with condoms, the pill or masturbation as well? How about sex with an infertile mate?


it is the norm.Plenty of things are the norm. If everyone obeyed the norm there would be no creativity, no originality, no personhood. It is the ways that we rebuke the norm that makes us who we are.


Have you any children, gays and gentlemen? If not, then your orientation is unnatural.You need a treatment, and if it is not treated then do not expose your perversion on display.
To equalize the pathology and the norm - what a r-r-revolutionary,indeed!You are a reactionary scumbag.

[anticap]

The purpose of sex is the procreation

Try telling that to a Bonobo chimp.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I strongly disagree with Kowalski's homophobic views but I would not want to see him banned. He expresses himself very well and seems intelligent and willing to learn.
Marx and Engels appeared to be homophobic. Che certainly was homophobic and had sexist views. This does not invalidate their work as revolutionaries.

I've lived In Moscow for several years. Russia is an intensely homophobic society.Many communists there see gay rights as a western liberal thing, alien to their own struggles. This is a wrong view.We have to show how all forms of oppression are a part of and contribute to capitalist oppression by dividing the working class.

Soviet Russia was the first country to legalize homosexuality.Stalin in reviving borgouise norms, again banned it.

[Publius]

The purpose of sex is the procreation, the continuation of the human race,it is the norm.

Sometimes the purpose of sex is procreation. Other times it's enjoyment. Other times it's neither.

Who cares?



Have you any children, gays and gentlemen?

Nope.

And I'm straight. And I'm probably never going to have any because I don't think I want kids.

I guess that makes me unatural too, right? Along with all those infertile people, and people who just choose not to procreate.



If not, then your orientation is unnatural.

And it's the natural state for half of infants to die, and it's the natural state for people to be barbaric and violent and shit in the woods.

So what?

Go live in the woods if you want nature, idiot.



You need a treatment, and if it is not treated then do not expose your perversion on display.

Homosexuality is not a disease.



To equalize the pathology and the norm - what a r-r-revolutionary,indeed!

Do you hate blacks too? Women? What makes you different from the nazis you despise?

It surely isn't your stance on civil rights.

[jake williams]

I don't know a lot about Russian culture, but I know that at very least in Canada and the United States (for which I could almost certainly cite studies), and almost certainly a large number of other places, the image of gay people as wealthy nightclubbers has been consciously engineered - by the ruling class, as an ideological weapon against the working class.

It's a tool by right wing populist parties, especially the Republican Party, to try to argue that they are against some demonic "liberal elite", composed of gays and their sympathizers, whereas the Republicans (ie. the right wing of the ruling class) is in fact on the side of the little guy, the average Joe, who is, one presumes, an ordinary straight Christian. It's a lie - the Republicans (and other similar groups) invent an imaginary ruling class to rally against, and many parts of the working class, systematically deprived of education and knowing intuitively that there's someone ruling over their lives and fucking them over, buys into it.

That's not to say that there aren't lots of wealthy gay men who have their own part both in contributing to the stereotype, and to weakening gay movements through their own anti-working class leadership of many of them. But even they aren't the main enemy, and the vast majority of gay people, who are working class people, are not our enemies at all.

[Conquer or Die]

Identity politics are reactionary because they are nonsense. Liberal lines on identity politics are preferable to reactionary lines because they are stagnant, they go nowhere and therefore do not confuse the problem whereas reactionary lines intentionally confuse the problem. To be against gays is to assume a reactionary position. You, therefore, are reactionary and most likely part of the Nazi movement within Russia that seeks to destroy the greatest pragmatic philosophy of all time known as Bolshevism.

[Kowalski]

Hmmm :confused:
So you, "comrades", finally banned me and as I understood I can write only in "opposing ideologies". I have a lot of opportunities to discuss with opposing ideologies at my offline and online activity in Russia and I need not this forum for that stuff. And I was even called as reactionary. Thanks!

I came here for communicating with my comrades abroad, to know more about their struggle, theoretical views, practical work, if it possible - to make new contacts for cooperating with them, 'cause finally communist movement needs international scale of activity and discussions within it. I though I'll find here a lot of true comrades when I saw how large this forum is, it was kinda big gladness because of it.

I made a mistake.

As I have already said in intro topic,

I don't think that ban threatening is smth that "helps constructive dialog", and of course it isn't even comradely. And how do you expect I'll say what I think if you are going to ban me for it?... It's a strange practice. It seems very nice when somebody accuse "the terrible stalinists" of "totalitarism" and the next moment ban somebody another for words like mine. I'm just really confused.

Really, you people have here within the forum opposite minds that can kill one another in the real future - stalinists, trotskyists, anarchists, maoists. And really it's interesting - discussions among them, it's useful for developing of left theoretical positions. But when I came here to my comrades (as I though) I was banned. For that I said that we don't fight for gays and don't see necessity of fighting for them.

What do you suggest? To leave our current struggle and to go for securing gay-parades from the police forces of Rusian state? Do you think we are crazy and have nothing to do now? What do you know about our todays tasks and circumstances? Nothing as I see. And don't wanna know. That's your right. I can say only that it is not comradely relations. When we working with our newbies we see a lot of different views, many of them are strongly opposing to ours. And we have to communicate correctly, comradely (do you know what does this word mean at all? I'm not sure that you know...), to discuss with them with respect of their mind and person, and finally to correct their views.

Yes, we are in that cause the terrible reactionary totalitarian stalinists. Oh my nonexistent God! LOL

And of course non-totalitary, even ANTI-totalitarian (just so-called as I saw!) people here think it's normal to ban somebody with some different views regardless to their struggle in reality. I didn't see such a non-comradely, or better to say anti-comradely relations toward people even in opposing groups like trotskyists in Russia. Regardless to ours very opposing views we can communicate as it's normal to humans.

I haven't anything more to say. I was surprised, really. Moderators, I can answer you only like you talked with me in your unprintable vocabulary of cultural-advanced well-educated people. Go f**k yourself.

Good bye to our true comrades which I've met here during these days. :thumbup1:

[Bud Struggle]

Kowalski--cool off a bit. You weren't banned--just restricted it's a place where all the really cool people on RevLeft are. And you aren't a real "Reactionary" it's just an ill advised default name put in that slot when you're resricted. You can change it at any time. Take some time here and learn and listen. Ask questions find our what Communism is really about.

Now that bit of house keeping is done--you miss the point about gay liberation. Communism isn't about "choosing" which sort of people and which sort of beliefs should be free--it's an uncompromising quest that EVERYONE that is oppressed should be part of the struggle to be free. If one oppressed person is in chains we ALL are in chains.

It's an all or nothing situation. When you choose who should be free you are no better than the Bourgeoise--who choose themselves to be free but not the workers. Anything less than total freedom is a distortion of true meaning of Communism and believe me Communism has had enough distortions along the way.

If one is going to be a Communist one should be true to it's basic beliefs--or really, why bother?

And Kowalski is a Polish name not Russian.

[Hit The North]

Soviet Russia was the first country to legalize homosexuality.Stalin in reviving borgouise norms, again banned it.

This ^

The Bolsheviks (in their revolutionary phase) understood that as communists we are fighting for a society free of oppression, where the individual can express her or his self and be free to develop to their full potential.

The working class have no interest, and nothing to gain, in creating a society which pursues a policy of sexual repression.

As communists in the here and now, as fighters for this future society of freedom and equality, it is our duty to fight against all forms of violent oppression. This will mean opposing those who violently attack gay pride demonstrations. To do otherwise is to fail in our revolutionary duty.

[Obrero Rebelde]

For Kowalski:
http://www.365gay.com/news/moscow-mayor-bans-pride-parade-once-again/

[Sentinel]

Kowalski: Boo fucking hoo, you're so oppressed! You were restricted because we have forums such as Discrimination and Learning where we can't let homophobes like yourself post -- but you were not banned despite that you really should have been, and would have been had you come from a 'western' country.

I wanted to give you the opportunity to debate the issue with us here in Opposing Ideologies and hopefully reconsider your views, because you have not had the same opportunity as western leftists to know better. So I split the thread into this forum and let you keep posting.

Instead of answering any of the points that I and others have made challenging your discriminatory views, you have chosen to repeat them like a broken record, and to act like some victim of persecution -- which is funny considering that you yourself approve of (and probably take part in) actual persecution of others, and that it was the very reason you were restricted.

This is a debate forum, and as you don't debate you have no purpose here. Now you are banned.

Thread closed.