Question!

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Why is it that many organizations in the third world, oppose homosexuality and accuse it of being a bourgeois decadence?

[A.R.Amistad]

Why is it that many organizations in the third world, oppose homosexuality and accuse it of being a bourgeois decadence?

I'm going to be accused of sectarianism here, but I would largely blame it on Stalin and Stalinism. After the 1917 Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks had repealed all of the reactionary and homophobic laws regarding sexuality. However, by the time Stalin dominated the USSR, he reestablished all of the old Tsarist laws regarding homosexuality, making it illegal again. This was probably because he never fully repudiated his reactionary education as a Seminary student. It was this influence as well as an opportunist peddling to reactionary sections of the proletariat that is characteristic of Stalinism.

[scarletghoul]

I'm going to be accused of sectarianism here, but I would largely blame it on Stalin and Stalinism. After the 1917 Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks had repealed all of the reactionary and homophobic laws regarding sexuality. However, by the time Stalin dominated the USSR, he reestablished all of the old Tsarist laws regarding homosexuality, making it illegal again. This was probably because he never fully repudiated his reactionary education as a Seminary student. It was this influence as well as an opportunist peddling to reactionary sections of the proletariat that is characteristic of Stalinism.
Er.. Wow ? You seriously think that homophobia exists to the extent that it does in the third world just because of Stalin ? This is one of the most ridiculous positions in the history of RevLeft.

And honestly, I'm not sure of the answer to the question.. Its a very good question though and I hope someone can write a good answer soon. My guess however would be that the bourgeoisie are more able to be actively or openly gay, as their wealth means theyd be less dependant on the family unit and their privelage makes them less likely to be persecuted.. not sure though.

[Robocommie]

I'm going to be accused of sectarianism here, but I would largely blame it on Stalin and Stalinism. After the 1917 Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks had repealed all of the reactionary and homophobic laws regarding sexuality. However, by the time Stalin dominated the USSR, he reestablished all of the old Tsarist laws regarding homosexuality, making it illegal again. This was probably because he never fully repudiated his reactionary education as a Seminary student. It was this influence as well as an opportunist peddling to reactionary sections of the proletariat that is characteristic of Stalinism.

Hah, man, I have to say, I'm not a fan of Stalin, but it's more than a bit silly to try and pin global homophobia on something he did in the 1930s that only directly affected the Soviet Union.

[Zapatas Guns]

I would postulate that many third world countries are socially conservative. They may view openly homosexual people as being decadent. It is just an idea though I don't know for sure.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It's complicated but I think much of this comes from the fact that many Third World communist organizations are not really "communist" but more oriented towards capitalist national development.Maoist and similar Third World groups essentially pursue a national bourgeoise strategy. Capitalist development, no matter who its carried out by, whether its Prachanda or a comprador elite, relies on traditional family systems-unpaid childcare and reinforcement of capitalist structures of authority to manage a society. Rural societies, based on labor from a tight family system, can be homophobic.Rather than educate people away more traditional prejudices and superstitions, its more in the interest of some Third World groups to reinforce them.

I don't know Mao's atitude towards homosexuality. My guess would be that it was very negative. The US RCP regarded homosexuality as a bourgeoise disorder and only changed in the 90s.

I'm not sure if this is related but US Third Worldist groups, while not being homophobic, have a very odd atitude towards sexuality. MIM used to believe that "all sex under patriarchy is rape". Shubel Morgan has a bizarre form of puritanism-"you rich westerners get your sexual pleasures by exploiting peasants in the Third World".

I certainly don't believe Maoism is inherently homophobic, much of this relates to deeply ingrained atitudes.

[ContrarianLemming]

It is theorized that the less advanced a nation is, the more they must focus on survival, and less on imagination, play, fun, openness, these attributes bring tolerance. The most advanced nations are the least homophobic (Japan).

[el_chavista]

Why is it that many organizations in the third world, oppose homosexuality and accuse it of being a bourgeois decadence?
It's not the organization, but what local society has internalized in the individuals.
Religion is most probably the main source of homophobia, in this descending order of intolerance: Islam, Catholic, Orthodoxy (Hullo Stalin!), etc.

[FSL]

I'm going to be accused of sectarianism here, but I would largely blame it on Stalin and Stalinism. After the 1917 Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks had repealed all of the reactionary and homophobic laws regarding sexuality. However, by the time Stalin dominated the USSR, he reestablished all of the old Tsarist laws regarding homosexuality, making it illegal again. This was probably because he never fully repudiated his reactionary education as a Seminary student. It was this influence as well as an opportunist peddling to reactionary sections of the proletariat that is characteristic of Stalinism.

Homosexuality as a "bourgeois decadence" is Marx's and Engels' view on the matter, not Stalin's.

Also, Stalin wasn't passing laws himself, there were actual state organs doing that. I know, who would have thought.

[blake 3:17]

Why is it that many organizations in the third world, oppose homosexuality and accuse it of being a bourgeois decadence?

I think you'd need to look at very specific organizations and locales. Within certain situations, sexual conservatism makes sense. In other situations there may well queer sexual practices that fit into cultural traditions. Nationalist movements, including the most emancipatory, have tend towards rigid gender/sex roles and definitions.


I'm going to be accused of sectarianism here, but I would largely blame it on Stalin and Stalinism


Uhhh........... The decriminalization of queer sex under the Bolsheviks was more accidental than it might seem. There were certain avant garde pockets in the early Soviet period that were more liberal on these issues, but there was relatively little in terms of any organized sexual liberation movement.

The part of your post that makes the most sense is if one considers Stalinism as a nationalist movement. In the early 30s the birth rate became an intense of object of interest!
.