Was Engels a homophobe?

[Salmonella]

Hello. Sorry if this is in the wrong part of the forum.
Sorry for my bad english.

I have heard that Engels was a homophobe. This makes me confused because most marxist are for LGBT rights. Is it even true? I think marxism is a great ideology, as a LGBT-person myself I get critic sometimes by other LGBT activists and they say that Engels was a homophobe.

If it is true, wasn't Engels just a product of his time? I heard homosexuality was legal in communist Poland and the beginning of USSR. Are there any other lesbian, gay, bi or trans commies here? What do you think about that Engels was a homophobe, if he was?

[Broletariat]

Even if Engels was a homophobe, it doesn't discredit the rest of his works or anything, he just had, at least, one bad idea is all. We can accept some things people say and reject others.

[Salmonella]

Even if Engels was a homophobe, it doesn't discredit the rest of his works or anything, he just had, at least, one bad idea is all. We can accept some things people say and reject others.

I agree.

[∞]

Then we have two options,either ban marxists or welcome homophobes

[Bubbles]

It's not really relevant for his theories if he was ha homophobe or not.

It's important when we discuss matters that we stick to a scientific approach where we look at _what_ people are claiming, and not the person claiming it.

[bailey_187]

He said some homophobic stuff, and some racist stuff. This doesnt make historical materialism false though. In terms of theory, Engels says nothing about LGBT people, so i dont think it matters.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Its irrelevant. If someone uses that in an argument against you, to discredit your beliefs in the necessary downfall of capitalism, then they aren't worth arguing with in the first place.

Even if Engels was homophobic, this was a very long time ago and nowadays any socialist/communist that is homophobic isn't worth anything to class struggle as they potentially alienate large sections of the conscious working class. Generally speaking, the left rightly see the LGBT community as their brothers and sisters in the fight against oppression. That is what we concentrate on, not abstract speculations about Engel's views on sexuality (which have no relation to the scientific aspects of Marxism that we concentrate on).

[Pretty Flaco]

Considering the time period he lived in, and where he lived, I think It'd be safe to say that he probably was homophobic.
When did the concern for LGBT rights in modern Europe even arise?

[Salmonella]

Its irrelevant. If someone uses that in an argument against you, to discredit your beliefs in the necessary downfall of capitalism, then they aren't worth arguing with in the first place.

Even if Engels was homophobic, this was a very long time ago and nowadays any socialist/communist that is homophobic isn't worth anything to class struggle as they potentially alienate large sections of the conscious working class. Generally speaking, the left rightly see the LGBT community as their brothers and sisters in the fight against oppression. That is what we concentrate on, not abstract speculations about Engel's views on sexuality (which have no relation to the scientific aspects of Marxism that we concentrate on).

True. Every comrade I know are for LGBT rights.

[Dimentio]

Two words: 19th Century...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Marxism is a method and set of tools for human liberation. This certainly includes lgbt rights. The Bolsheviks were the first regime in modern times to legalize homosexuality. Marxist activists have been at the forefront of lgbt rights. Harry Hay, a former CP labor organizer, basically began much of the gay rights movement in the US.

In "Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State", Engels did have a few homophobic remarks. In their private correspondence Marx and Engels did come off as homophobic.This is regrettable but then this was the 19th century. I'm shaky in this but I believe Marx defended a communist who was know to be homosexual.

Leslie Feinberg (who is trans)of Workers World has good stuff on the Marxist view of lgbt rights.(although I would disagree w/Workers World on other issues)

There are a few Marxist TG people here.

I have an article, although I should have discussed socialist theory more.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511

[RedStarOverChina]

A hundred years from now, people will point out and be disgusted at our own prejudices. None of us are without bias or prejudice.

[Adil3tr]

They weren't anti-gay. That is based on a flawed translation. The original German text refers to pedophiles. The Stalinists changed Marx to fit their own views.

[Nolan]

Then we have two options,either ban marxists or welcome homophobes

And Bakunin was anti-semitic, so I guess we'll have to ban anarchists or welcome nazis.

[Nolan]

They weren't anti-gay. That is based on a flawed translation. The original German text refers to pedophiles. The Stalinists changed Marx to fit their own views.

Ok bro.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

They weren't anti-gay. That is based on a flawed translation. The original German text refers to pedophiles. The Stalinists changed Marx to fit their own views.

This is interesting. Would you have a reference for this? As I remember there is a passage in OGPP&TS towards the end which wasn't exactly homophobic but seemed to imply this. If you have further information I'd appreciate it.

[Adil3tr]

This is interesting. Would you have a reference for this? As I remember there is a passage in OGPP&TS towards the end which wasn't exactly homophobic but seemed to imply this. If you have further information I'd appreciate it.

It was an ISR piece about how the part of The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, where Engels talks about "the abominable act of sodomy", is actually a edited or flawed translation from the 4th russian edition, but the original german text says "the abominable act of man boy love" or something.

[Obs]

It was an ISR piece about how the part of The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, where Engels talks about "the abominable act of sodomy", is actually a edited or flawed translation from the 4th russian edition, but the original german text says "the abominable act of man boy love" or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

[Dimentio]

They weren't anti-gay. That is based on a flawed translation. The original German text refers to pedophiles. The Stalinists changed Marx to fit their own views.

It was a very widespread belief in those days that male homosexuals were mostly interested in teenage boys. It is also widespread today in homophobic environments.

[Dimentio]

Then we have two options,either ban marxists or welcome homophobes

Ignoramus :lol:

[mollymae]

I have a question for everyone who said something along the lines of "It was acceptable at the time". Would you say the same thing about the slave owning leaders of the American Revolution? After all, slave ownership was common practice at that place and time among wealthy elites--so if you were to judge their characters, would you overlook that part of it, just because it was socially acceptable back then?

I think we have to make a distinction between judging a person's character and judging their contributions to their respective fields. The fact that Engels was a homophobe is irrelevant to his contributions to socialism, therefore in that respect it is easily overlooked. But if we were to analyze his character and himself as a person, (which is obviously less relevant anyway), then yeah, he was kind of a prick by our standards.

[Dimentio]

I have a question for everyone who said something along the lines of "It was acceptable at the time". Would you say the same thing about the slave owning leaders of the American Revolution? After all, slave ownership was common practice at that place and time among wealthy elites--so if you were to judge their characters, would you overlook that part of it, just because it was socially acceptable back then?

I think we have to make a distinction between judging a person's character and judging their contributions to their respective fields. The fact that Engels was a homophobe is irrelevant to his contributions to socialism, therefore in that respect it is easily overlooked. But if we were to analyze his character and himself as a person, (which is obviously less relevant anyway), then yeah, he was kind of a prick by our standards.

Marx apparently had a housemaid whom he made pregnant and treated quite badly. He also disliked a nephew and harboured some Russophobic feelings.

We should not judge people's characters, we should judge their ideas.

[Ztrain]

Well considering that it was the 1860s homophobia was probly far more common...it DID seem unnatural than...this does not discredit his thought after ll Niethze( i misspelled that) was an anti semite buyt that cand discredit himself...CONTEXT:)

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Marx apparently had a housemaid whom he made pregnant and treated quite badly.

That has been disputed -- http://marxmyths.org/terrell-carver/article.htm.


He also disliked a nephew and harboured some Russophobic feelings.

Myth, I think.



We should not judge people's characters, we should judge their ideas.

Quite right about that.

Abolitionist Abe Lincoln said in historic debate against Douglas that he didn't really think that black people were as good as whites. Wise old Gandhi, father of the Indian non-violent resistance movement, freely admitted that he beat his wife.

[Salmonella]

Marx apparently had a housemaid whom he made pregnant and treated quite badly. He also disliked a nephew and harboured some Russophobic feelings.

May I ask you for the source?

[Salmonella]

They weren't anti-gay. That is based on a flawed translation. The original German text refers to pedophiles. The Stalinists changed Marx to fit their own views.

I didn't know that. Thanks for information!

[Bubbles]

I have a question for everyone who said something along the lines of "It was acceptable at the time". Would you say the same thing about the slave owning leaders of the American Revolution? After all, slave ownership was common practice at that place and time among wealthy elites--so if you were to judge their characters, would you overlook that part of it, just because it was socially acceptable back then?

Well, why should you want to judge the characters of slave owners? To come to the conclusion that they where truly evil by nature?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Slave owning is a form of property relations based on denying other people any control over their lives. A group of people, based on the color of teir skin, are condemned to a life of penal servitude.

Homophobia is a set of attitudes. It can be expressed in legal or social discrimination, harassment or violence.

Both slavery and homophobia are reactionary and should be opposed. Its impossible to compare them though, if a comparison has to be made, slavery is far worse.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well, why should you want to judge the characters of slave owners? To come to the conclusion that they where truly evil by nature?

How do you define "evil"? I would say many of the slave owners were evil by nature.It could be said that a culture and society that was based on slavery but was several degrees removed from it developed, like Regency England, and people indirectly benefiting from the system may not have been "evil" per se, but they were certainly products of an evil system.

[Bubbles]

How do you define "evil"? I would say many of the slave owners were evil by nature.It could be said that a culture and society that was based on slavery but was several degrees removed from it developed, like Regency England, and people indirectly benefiting from the system may not have been "evil" per se, but they were certainly products of an evil system.
It all depends on what ethics a person have, and I don't see the point of using it in political debate or social analysis. I really find it pretty useless.

[Adil3tr]

It was a very widespread belief in those days that male homosexuals were mostly interested in teenage boys. It is also widespread today in homophobic environments.
That would be a valid point, but they were talking about Ancient Greece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_pederasty

[∞]

And Bakunin was anti-semitic, so I guess we'll have to ban anarchists or welcome nazis.

We already welcome Nazis we just call them stalinists instead.

[Nolan]

We already welcome Nazis we just call them stalinists instead.

So if nazis are totally the same thing as stalinists...and Bakunin was a nazi too, since its completely meaningless at this point...then he was a stalinist! So anarchism = stalinism!

[Victory]

What I find helarious is how Left Communists and Trosykists attack Stalin for opposing homosexuality, but forever remain uncritical of Engels and blow smoke up his ass regardless of the fact that they both opposed homosexuality for the same reason, because they felt it had been created by Capitalism and needed to be destroyed in the development of Socialism.

Like Consveratives, no consistancy.

[Devrim]

What I find helarious is how Left Communists and Trosykists attack Stalin for opposing homosexuality, but forever remain uncritical of Engels and blow smoke up his ass regardless of the fact that they both opposed homosexuality for the same reason, because they felt it had been created by Capitalism and needed to be destroyed in the development of Socialism.

I don't think I have ever even heard of any left communist attacking Stalin for his position on homosexuality.

On the other hand, I think we did criticise Engels on it recently:


Homophobia has deep roots, and the workers' movement, including its most advanced elements, has not been free from it. In Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, a magnificent broadside against the historical oppression of women, Engels himself presents homosexual activity in the ancient world as a pure product of decadence: "but this degradation of the women [Engels is referring to prostitution in ancient Greece] was avenged on the men and degraded them also till they fell into the abominable practice of sodomy and degraded alike their gods with the myth of Ganymede." Some of Engels' private views, expressed in correspondence with Marx, are even more obviously influenced by the dominant ideology[2].

Devrim

[Uppercut]

We have to remember that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in many countires until the mid 20th century.

[∞]

What I find helarious is how Left Communists and Trosykists attack Stalin for opposing homosexuality, but forever remain uncritical of Engels and blow smoke up his ass regardless of the fact that they both opposed homosexuality for the same reason, because they felt it had been created by Capitalism and needed to be destroyed in the development of Socialism.

Like Consveratives, no consistancy.

Someone ban this homophobe.

[Adi Shankara]

Someone ban this homophobe.

To be completely honest, maybe it's just that I'm tired, but I don't see what he said that was homophobic...he has kind've a point too.

People are giving Engels a pass on it saying "oh it was the 19th century so it was okay" etc.

So time passed makes intolerance okay? You would think Engels would be aware of the struggle homosexual comrades face...

But anyways, does that mean it was okay for Thomas Jefferson to go to his slave and rape her all the time because it was "the times"?

even if Engels did have good ideas, if he really held such beliefs about homosexuality (which I don't know, I'd have to look into) then he is a bigot and a homophobe. period. and of.

[HEAD ICE]

I have a question for everyone who said something along the lines of "It was acceptable at the time". Would you say the same thing about the slave owning leaders of the American Revolution? After all, slave ownership was common practice at that place and time among wealthy elites--so if you were to judge their characters, would you overlook that part of it, just because it was socially acceptable back then?

I think we have to make a distinction between judging a person's character and judging their contributions to their respective fields. The fact that Engels was a homophobe is irrelevant to his contributions to socialism, therefore in that respect it is easily overlooked. But if we were to analyze his character and himself as a person, (which is obviously less relevant anyway), then yeah, he was kind of a prick by our standards.

People like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry both owned slaves and they both acknowledged in their writings that slavery was an evil. Neither one of them ever freed any of their slaves (except for Jefferson who freed his children), Patrick Henry organized slave catching militias and defended his slave owning because it would be too hard for him to work. Abolitionism was a significant movement back then, slavery was opposed by slaves who made up majorities or near majorities in the south and by most European countries (going a little further in time towards the Civil War).

[mollymae]

Well, why should you want to judge the characters of slave owners? To come to the conclusion that they where truly evil by nature?

Here in the US some people look up to the Founders as if they were gods.

[Adi Shankara]

Here in the US some people look up to the Founders as if they were gods.

True; we're taught that George Washington was some great moral force...nevermind that he massacred Iroquois who put their weapons down, ate well as his volunteer army starved during the winter, and was an all around asshole (at least according to a REAL hero of the Revolutionary war, Thomas Paine, who hated slavery and hated the concept of private property)

[Adil3tr]

They weren't anti-gay. That is based on a flawed translation. The original German text refers to pedophiles. The Stalinists changed Marx's translations to fit their own views.


This is interesting. Would you have a reference for this? As I remember there is a passage in OGPP&TS towards the end which wasn't exactly homophobic but seemed to imply this. If you have further information I'd appreciate it.

It was an ISR piece about how the part of The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, where Engels talks about "the abominable act of sodomy", is actually a edited or flawed translation from the 4th russian edition, but the original german text says "the abominable act of man boy love" or something.


It was a very widespread belief in those days that male homosexuals were mostly interested in teenage boys. It is also widespread today in homophobic environments.

That would be a valid point, but they were talking about Ancient Greece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_pederasty (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_pederasty)


What I find helarious is how Left Communists and Trosykists attack Stalin for opposing homosexuality, but forever remain uncritical of Engels and blow smoke up his ass regardless of the fact that they both opposed homosexuality for the same reason, because they felt it had been created by Capitalism and needed to be destroyed in the development of Socialism.

Like Consveratives, no consistancy.

And Like a Conservative, You're full of smug Maoist crap

[Nolan]

True; we're taught that George Washington was some great moral force...nevermind that he massacred Iroquois who put their weapons down, ate well as his volunteer army starved during the winter, and was an all around asshole (at least according to a REAL hero of the Revolutionary war, Thomas Paine, who hated slavery and hated the concept of private property)

Thomas Paine hated George and was against private property? Are you high or am I incredibly uniformed about that man?

[Red Commissar]

Thomas Paine was certainly a progressive figure for his time, but his view on property was really one of the state should observe how it is handled. He comes up with an early proposal of a property tax to fund old-age pension in Agrarian Justice which he addressed to the revolutionary French Assembly. He has a brief explanation of how the concept of property developed from man, though I've not seen him outstraight hate private property. His position seems have been one of "it's an unfortunately development, but we must find a way to deal with it".

As for George Washington, the two got into a quarrel towards the end of Paine's life because Paine accused Washington of leaving him to rot in a French Prison (Robespierre had targeted Girondists for elimination, who Paine associated with). There are letters of his available online which he basically goes on a rant against Washington.


This is the ground upon which America now stands. All her rights of commerce and navigation are to begin anew, and that with loss of character to begin with. If there is sense enough left in the heart to call a blush into the cheek, the Washington Administration must be ashamed to appear. And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.


As for the matter of Engels, we must see it in two ways

-The time he lived in
-The possibility that this quote may have been mistranslated.

And certainly it's not an important aspect of his work anyways.