Homosexuals and the Leftist view

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Leftists take the side of the oppressed whenever there is conflict. If it is the US vs Iraq or Israel vs Palestine, it is always the latter. But this is only true of the straight folks. What of the LGBT among leftists? Do you take the imperialist's side because at least they aren't ruthlessly homophobic or the side of the oppressed (even though they're homophobic) as a matter of principle?

Isn't this going to be hard for the LGBT community? As leftists, they have to favor the oppressed but, as oppressed people themselves, they cannot favor homophobes just because those particular homophobes are fighting against imperialists.

Put simply, there is a conflict between ideology and identity politics. What's the solution?

Mahatma

[Invincible Summer]

Are you asking about contradiction between anti-imperialism and how supporting the anti-imperialist side may inherently support bigots? It's not very clear.

[Adi Shankara]

unfortunately, while not in the Marxist tradition, Communism has historically been pretty intolerant towards homosexuality, listing it as a "mental illness" in many countries, and in others, making it a criminal offense. homosexuals were probably the worst treated in Albania and Democratic Kampuchea, where they both were prison-sentence-carrying "bourgeoisie mental illnesses", of which the latter, resorted in death. of all the communist nations though and of their leaders, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Enver Hoxha were the most militantly anti-homosexual.

however, I'd like to point out that Marxism never had a position on homosexuality, so we may never truly know, though I don't think Marx would be anti-homosexual if he saw the state of their treatment today.

[RGacky3]

First of all, the oppressed are no more homophobic than the oppressors, second its not that hard, support the oppressed in their liberation but if some are homophobic condemn that.

[Che a chara]

Leftists take the side of the oppressed whenever there is conflict. If it is the US vs Iraq or Israel vs Palestine, it is always the latter. But this is only true of the straight folks. What of the LGBT among leftists? Do you take the imperialist's side because at least they aren't ruthlessly homophobic or the side of the oppressed (even though they're homophobic) as a matter of principle?

Isn't this going to be hard for the LGBT community? As leftists, they have to favor the oppressed but, as oppressed people themselves, they cannot favor homophobes just because those particular homophobes are fighting against imperialists.

Put simply, there is a conflict between ideology and identity politics. What's the solution?

Mahatma

Well I know of a few gay people who would be pro-Palestine.

During the recent Flotilla terrorist attacks by Israel, the gay community was well represented in protests. I think as a matter of principle they'd probably be socialists in a lot of cases and support the rights of others who are oppressed, I think.

I see where you're coming from, but there is socialist organisations in Palestine that support the liberation of the LGBT community and in Iraq as well, so I don't think their principles/outlook would be too conflicted as i'm sure they'd give their support to them groups, while also advocating the understanding and education of their position to the wider community opposed to homosexuality.

[RGacky3]

During the recent Flotilla terrorist attacks by Israel, the gay community was well represented in protests. I think as a matter of principle they'd probably be socialists in a lot of cases and support the rights of others, I think.

A persons sexuality has little or no baring on their socio-economic politics.

Honestly I think Ghandi from pretty much all his threads has been trying to do a "gotcha" on socialists, which has'nt worked.

[Che a chara]

A persons sexuality has little or no baring on their socio-economic politics.

True, but they do have the support of socialist groups, so why wouldn't they have an affiliation with such groups ? I'm not saying all would be socialists, but many would have a connection to an ideology that liberates them.

[Queercommie Girl]

A persons sexuality has little or no baring on their socio-economic politics.

Honestly I think Ghandi from pretty much all his threads has been trying to do a "gotcha" on socialists, which has'nt worked.


However, the very fact that LGBT people are severely oppressed in most parts of the world means that they are generally speaking more likely to link up with the other oppressed peoples of the world.

And historically the modern LGBT movement started as a leftist and socialist movement.

[Revy]

unfortunately, while not in the Marxist tradition, Communism has historically been pretty intolerant towards homosexuality
Correction: state-capitalist revisionist bureaucrats have been pretty intolerant towards homosexuality. "Communism" is not synonymous with their kind. Marxism is part of communism. Just clearing things up for you.



however, I'd like to point out that Marxism never had a position on homosexuality, so we may never truly know, though I don't think Marx would be anti-homosexual if he saw the state of their treatment today.Marxism isn't supposed to be about what Marx "would have thought" on every single topic (he is not Jesus! he is merely a political thinker). Marxism is concerned with his views on class struggle and economics and philosophy, not hot-button social issues (it goes without saying that those who support liberation of the working class SHOULD support liberation of social groups, a homophobic "revolutionary" is no less a contradiction than a racist one). This does not mean "Marxism never had a position on homosexuality". The opinion among Marxists today is that gays are an oppressed group and that we should struggle for gay liberation. Remember that in 1917 homosexuality was legalized in Russia. The first revolution ever, homosexuality was legalized, only until Stalin took power and betrayed the revolution. He also banned abortion and divorce, so it goes to show it was about more than homosexuality, Stalin was a conservative Christian little shit.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

A persons sexuality has little or no baring on their socio-economic politics.
.

Look at it this way. Let's say you're a homosexual and also a leftist. An imperialist nation, call it A, attacks and occupies a weaker nation, B. People in B are oppressed terribly, their human rights violated etc. etc. As a human being, you feel a lot of sympathy.

But you also notice that B's culture and religion not only prohibit homosexuality but also punishes homosexuals by stoning, hanging etc. They are ruthless in dealing with homosexuals; the leaders, their organizations, political parties are all homophobic.

In this context, would you support B because they're oppressed by a bigger and stronger A? Or, would you refuse to support B because B is doing to the homosexuals what A has been doing to them all this time?

Can you answer honestly? All I am saying is: it is so very hard when there arises a conflict between ideology and identity politics. It becomes hard to choose because, as a leftist, you'd want to support B and yet, as a gay person, you'd also feel compelled to do the exact opposite.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

However, the very fact that LGBT people are severely oppressed in most parts of the world means that they are generally speaking more likely to link up with the other oppressed peoples of the world.


What if other oppressed groups are homophobic, as they invariably are?

[Dean]

Leftists take the side of the oppressed whenever there is conflict. If it is the US vs Iraq or Israel vs Palestine, it is always the latter. But this is only true of the straight folks. What of the LGBT among leftists? Do you take the imperialist's side because at least they aren't ruthlessly homophobic or the side of the oppressed (even though they're homophobic) as a matter of principle?

Isn't this going to be hard for the LGBT community? As leftists, they have to favor the oppressed but, as oppressed people themselves, they cannot favor homophobes just because those particular homophobes are fighting against imperialists.

Put simply, there is a conflict between ideology and identity politics. What's the solution?

Mahatma

You may as well be saying that we will take the imperialist side by supporting secular social organization, because we oppose dominant Islamic movements in the Middle East. That's silly, of course, for the same reasons.

We stand on our own. We don't need to be "for" the homophobes or Islamists, or for the imperialists. We oppose both.

[Queercommie Girl]

What if other oppressed groups are homophobic, as they invariably are?

Many oppressed groups are not necessarily homophobic, so I don't know what your point about "they invariably are" is. Islamic fundamentalists aren't the only oppressed group in the world, and Islamic fundamentalists in Iran actually treat transgendered people better than in some Western countries.

[#FF0000]

Look at it this way. Let's say you're a homosexual and also a leftist. An imperialist nation, call it A, attacks and occupies a weaker nation, B. People in B are oppressed terribly, their human rights violated etc. etc. As a human being, you feel a lot of sympathy.

But you also notice that B's culture and religion not only prohibit homosexuality but also punishes homosexuals by stoning, hanging etc. They are ruthless in dealing with homosexuals; the leaders, their organizations, political parties are all homophobic.

In this context, would you support B because they're oppressed by a bigger and stronger A? Or, would you refuse to support B because B is doing to the homosexuals what A has been doing to them all this time?

Can you answer honestly? All I am saying is: it is so very hard when there arises a conflict between ideology and identity politics. It becomes hard to choose because, as a leftist, you'd want to support B and yet, as a gay person, you'd also feel compelled to do the exact opposite.

Nobody says imperialism is wrong because the victims of imperialism hold great views and are committed socialists, though.

[RGacky3]

In this context, would you support B because they're oppressed by a bigger and stronger A? Or, would you refuse to support B because B is doing to the homosexuals what A has been doing to them all this time?

You'd oppose what A is doing to B and also what B is doing to homosexuals. I'm sorry if its not the black and white answer you want but thats the way the world works.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Nobody says imperialism is wrong because the victims of imperialism hold great views and are committed socialists, though.

Then couldn't someone argue that supporting the 'victim' is just as bad? Imperialists aren't socialists, but neither are their victims. So what's the point in supporting anybody over anybody? Isn't the whole thing futile? I am just confused as to what our goal as socialists is.

[Queercommie Girl]

Then couldn't someone argue that supporting the 'victim' is just as bad? Imperialists aren't socialists, but neither are their victims. So what's the point in supporting anybody over anybody? Isn't the whole thing futile? I am just confused as to what our goal as socialists is.

Your whole edifice collapses in reality because to be frank, statistically speaking, the majority of the world's oppressed peoples, as it stands now, are not explicitly homophobic or transphobic. A minority of Islamic fundamentalists cannot represent everyone.

[#FF0000]

Then couldn't someone argue that supporting the 'victim' is just as bad? Imperialists aren't socialists, but neither are their victims. So what's the point in supporting anybody over anybody? Isn't the whole thing futile? I am just confused as to what our goal as socialists is.

People are against imperialism because an imperialist nation invading a smaller country, no matter what the state reason, doesn't do anything but make the invading country more powerful.

From Trotsky: "Anti Imperialist Struggle is the Key to Liberation"


I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

[Drace]

@Op

Then couldn't someone argue that supporting the 'victim' is just as bad? Imperialists aren't socialists, but neither are their victims. So what's the point in supporting anybody over anybody? Isn't the whole thing futile? I am just confused as to what our goal as socialists is.

I don't understand what your trying to say at all.

As socialists we fight for the liberation of all men (and women) from economic, political, and social harassment. Be it exploitation, oppression or bigotry. Furthermore, we wish to create a classless and stateless society in which the means of productions are operated and owned by the workers themselves.

Whats hard to understand here? We fight against racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anything else which renders one person below another.


unfortunately, while not in the Marxist tradition, Communism has historically been pretty intolerant towards homosexuality, listing it as a "mental illness" in many countries, and in others, making it a criminal offense. homosexuals were probably the worst treated in Albania and Democratic Kampuchea, where they both were prison-sentence-carrying "bourgeoisie mental illnesses", of which the latter, resorted in death. of all the communist nations though and of their leaders, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Enver Hoxha were the most militantly anti-homosexual.

I don't know how accurate that is.
Homosexuality was finally legalized under Lenin. Although Stalin reverted that, I don't believe he at all held a "militantly anti-homosexual" stance against them. I don't really know about Hoxha or Mao, but even citing Pol Pot as a communist is rather a joke.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Look at it this way. Let's say you're a homosexual and also a leftist. An imperialist nation, call it A, attacks and occupies a weaker nation, B. People in B are oppressed terribly, their human rights violated etc. etc. As a human being, you feel a lot of sympathy.

But you also notice that B's culture and religion not only prohibit homosexuality but also punishes homosexuals by stoning, hanging etc. They are ruthless in dealing with homosexuals; the leaders, their organizations, political parties are all homophobic.

In this context, would you support B because they're oppressed by a bigger and stronger A? Or, would you refuse to support B because B is doing to the homosexuals what A has been doing to them all this time?

Can you answer honestly? All I am saying is: it is so very hard when there arises a conflict between ideology and identity politics. It becomes hard to choose because, as a leftist, you'd want to support B and yet, as a gay person, you'd also feel compelled to do the exact opposite.
It is worth considering the fact that many oppressed nations have backward perspectives on sexuality as a result of the oppression they face. Many of the Palestinian liberation movements in Palestine have a fierce, anti-homosexual Islamic ideology, but can we blame them for that? No, their desperate and confused ideology is a reflection of their oppression.

People should support victims of oppression regardless of their sexuality, and we should think about the conditions that allow these homophobic stances to rise in the countries of the oppressed.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't know how accurate that is.

Homosexuality was finally legalized under Lenin. Although Stalin reverted that, I don't believe he at all held a "militantly anti-homosexual" stance against them. I don't really know about Hoxha or Mao, but even citing Pol Pot as a communist is rather a joke.


Actually Stalin was very explicitly homophobic. In 1931 he passed the law called Article 121 which explicitly reversed Lenin's earlier legalisation and officially outlawed homosexuality.

There was no explicit homophobic law in Mao's China but it was often interpreted to be illegal under a related sexual law.

But to be frank being influenced significantly by Trotsky, even though I don't totally write off Stalin I'd say Stalinism is not genuine socialism, because it has no worker's democracy. Maoism is different because Mao called for proletarian democracy during the Cultural Revolution to fight against bureaucratism. Even though the Cultural Revolution failed, the principle still stands.

[#FF0000]

@Op
I don't know how accurate that is.
Homosexuality was finally legalized under Lenin. Although Stalin reverted that

Nitpicking, but that wasn't Stalin.

EDIT: That order was signed by Mikhail Kalinin, iirc

[NGNM85]

Look at it this way. Let's say you're a homosexual and also a leftist. An imperialist nation, call it A, attacks and occupies a weaker nation, B. People in B are oppressed terribly, their human rights violated etc. etc. As a human being, you feel a lot of sympathy.

But you also notice that B's culture and religion not only prohibit homosexuality but also punishes homosexuals by stoning, hanging etc. They are ruthless in dealing with homosexuals; the leaders, their organizations, political parties are all homophobic.

In this context, would you support B because they're oppressed by a bigger and stronger A? Or, would you refuse to support B because B is doing to the homosexuals what A has been doing to them all this time?

Can you answer honestly? All I am saying is: it is so very hard when there arises a conflict between ideology and identity politics. It becomes hard to choose because, as a leftist, you'd want to support B and yet, as a gay person, you'd also feel compelled to do the exact opposite.

I don't necessarily see a conflict. I'm deeply opposed to the US invasion of Afghanistan, but I also deplore the Islamic extremism that is quite prominent in that country. It's not a zero-sum game.

[RGacky3]

Then couldn't someone argue that supporting the 'victim' is just as bad? Imperialists aren't socialists, but neither are their victims. So what's the point in supporting anybody over anybody? Isn't the whole thing futile? I am just confused as to what our goal as socialists is.

If you saw a school yard bully getting kidnapped would you say "well if I call the cops, or yell out, maybe it means I approve of him bullying other kids, so I'll let him get kidnapped"? No you would'nt.

Its the same principle.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Every horrific event in history where the masses and the state were hand and hand in oppressing and killing innocents homosexuals have been there being oppressed. The witch burnings at the stake, gays were being burned in faggots because they were seen as to low to be burnt at the stake. Holocaust, it was sometimes worse to have a pink triangle than the star of david. The reason gays pick the side of oppressed is b/c whenever there has been oppression gays have been stuck in that oppression. Unfortunately homosexuals have fallen into the leftist statist trap. Too many of us want the legalization of gay marriage but no one has any right to tell me who i can love and to beg and grovel the masses to marry the person i love is just submitting to oppression. It is in fact the state that oppresses me for who i am so why should i beg it for my natural born rights. But too many homosexuals don't see that and instead only see that the state as a tool and instead of the oppressor and we will continue to face persecution until the oppressors are overthrown instead of begged.