I'm fucking pissed off after reading number six on this list

[Broletariat]

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/147945/6_ways_religious_frauds_try_to_make_gays_and_lesbi ans_straight/?page=entire

The whole article was rage worthy but now I'm fucking amped with energy to go do something productive that would also vent this frustration.

What the fuck man.

[Who?]

"What the fuck man," is precisely what I was thinking after reading number six.

'Though as disgusted as I am, I am not at all surprised. I'm sure plenty of that stuff is still going on behind closed doors and there's not much we can do about it.

We can march and protest but it's not like we can go burn down a church. Which really is a shame because people like that definitely need to be dealt with by radical means.

[Widerstand]

Is it morally questionable to suggest burning all of those places to ground?

[Who?]

Is it morally questionable to suggest burning all of those places to ground?

Of course, I don't condone burning churches, but marching and protesting doesn't seem to be working so well.

[Jazzhands]

The name of the org he's talking about is Love Won Out, not Love Wins Out. Thus sayeth The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right.

It's still fucking disgusting.

[leftace53]

Indeed, its absolutely disgusting. Its like torturing someone into liking one colour more than another - there is just no basis for it. But this is hardly anything new, there have also been institutionalized identification processes (Fruit Machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_%28homosexuality_test%29)), where it didn't necessarily result in torture, just grounds for exclusion from civil service.

The LGB(possibly T) witch hunt has been going on for ages, and it is nothing if not disgusting.

[Sir Comradical]

I tell my friends about these things when they assume that persecution of homosexuals only happens in brown countries where people are uneducated.

[Dimitri Molotov]

We can march and protest but it's not like we can go burn down a church. Which really is a shame because people like that definitely need to be dealt with by radical means.

i wish we could go burn stuff down, that seems like an appropriate action to take, but like you said, we cannot do that. something must be done, though, this makes me very enraged.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Is it morally questionable to suggest burning all of those places to ground?

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee223/Trefellin/VargChurchBurn.jpg

[AnthArmo]

Is it morally questionable to suggest burning all of those places to ground?

The only church that illuminates is a burning church - Durruti

[x371322]

Wow, now I'm conflicted. I've always been against the death penalty, and assholes like these have to go and make me rethink my position.

[Queercommie Girl]

Indeed, its absolutely disgusting. Its like torturing someone into liking one colour more than another - there is just no basis for it. But this is hardly anything new, there have also been institutionalized identification processes (Fruit Machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_machine_%28homosexuality_test%29)), where it didn't necessarily result in torture, just grounds for exclusion from civil service.

The LGB(possibly T) witch hunt has been going on for ages, and it is nothing if not disgusting.

What do you mean by "LGB(possibly T)"?

[anticap]

I understand the anger, but not the surprise. It was once the mainstream scientific consensus that non-heterosexuality was a mental illness. It's no wonder that the more backward elements of society would treat them similarly to, e.g., schizophrenics.

[leftace53]

What do you mean by "LGB(possibly T)"?
Don't get your knickers in a bunch now.
I simply mean that I have more knowledge of the LGB society and discrimination against them, than I know about Transgender discrimination. Like you have mentioned many times, in place such as Iran the situation of discrimination against the LGB society is vastly different from the discrimination against the "T" society, and from the video it is clear that Uganda is not an LGB friendly place, but it doesn't touch on transgenderal issues, and thus I don't know the state of affairs on transgender issues in Uganda.

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't get your knickers in a bunch now.
I simply mean that I have more knowledge of the LGB society and discrimination against them, than I know about Transgender discrimination. Like you have mentioned many times, in place such as Iran the situation of discrimination against the LGB society is vastly different from the discrimination against the "T" society, and from the video it is clear that Uganda is not an LGB friendly place, but it doesn't touch on transgenderal issues, and thus I don't know the state of affairs on transgender issues in Uganda.

I wasn't criticising you directly.

However, the use of the phrase "LGB(T)" is rather reactionary, given the context of LGBT activism in the UK, which you probably don't know. Because the mainstream pro-establishment LGBT human rights organisation Stonewall officially only includes LGB on its programme and not T, unlike the more grassroots organisations like Outrage. Indeed, one of the main focuses of trans campaigning in the UK at the moment is to actively boycott Stonewall until they agree to officially include T in their programme.

[Adi Shankara]

What do you mean by "LGB(possibly T)"?

he/she said that because we all know you'd jump on that and throw a predictable tantrum, so it's funny to watch you try and correct us for the stupidest reasons, as you become red-faced with rage.

[Queercommie Girl]

he/she said that because we all know you'd jump on that and throw a predictable tantrum, so it's funny to watch you try and correct us for the stupidest reasons, as you become red-faced with rage.

I didn't "throw a tantrum", I just asked a plain question. You seem to have a problem interpreting the meaning of posts.

And in the context of UK LGBT activism, LGB(T) is a reactionary word to use, given the stance of pro-establishment organisations like Stonewall, as I have pointed out.

The fact of the matter is that trans rights is just as important as gay rights, if you fail to recognise that, then that's clearly your problem, not mine.

The key thing here is that as a trans rights activist, I absolutely refuse to play "second fiddle" to LGB rights activism.

[Queercommie Girl]

I tell my friends about these things when they assume that persecution of homosexuals only happens in brown countries where people are uneducated.

"Brown countries"? That's not a very progressive term to use, is it?

[GPDP]

"Brown countries"? That's not a very progressive term to use, is it?

He was being facetious.

[gorillafuck]

he/she said that because we all know you'd jump on that and throw a predictable tantrum, so it's funny to watch you try and correct us for the stupidest reasons, as you become red-faced with rage.
That's obviously not the reason she said it. Don't try to start problems just for the hell of it.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I wasn't criticising you directly.
Thats it, now take a few deep breaths and think of kittens, glitter and rainbows. Relaxed yet?


However, the use of the phrase "LGB(T)" is rather reactionary, given the context of LGBT activism in the UK, which you probably don't know. Because the mainstream pro-establishment LGBT human rights organisation Stonewall officially only includes LGB on its programme and not T, unlike the more grassroots organisations like Outrage.Bigotry happens...



Indeed, one of the main focuses of trans campaigning in the UK at the moment is to actively boycott Stonewall until they agree to officially include T in their programme.Funny thing is how that organization is named after a riot started by a Transwoman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Rivera)

[Jazzratt]

Funny thing is how that organization is named after a riot started by a Transwoman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Rivera) Ha! They wouldn't fucking know it. Then again even if they included transgender issues on their agenda it would still be a pile of class collaborationist bullshit. Ultimately groups that fight for "equality" (as opposed to liberation) are doomed to this kind of oppurtunistic shit.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ha! They wouldn't fucking know it. Then again even if they included transgender issues on their agenda it would still be a pile of class collaborationist bullshit. Ultimately groups that fight for "equality" (as opposed to liberation) are doomed to this kind of oppurtunistic shit.
I'd argue complete liberation is the truest form of equality

[The Red Next Door]

I think love one out HQ need a http://www.alt3.co.uk/Graphics/car%20bomb.jpg set off at their office,

[Queercommie Girl]

Ha! They wouldn't fucking know it. Then again even if they included transgender issues on their agenda it would still be a pile of class collaborationist bullshit. Ultimately groups that fight for "equality" (as opposed to liberation) are doomed to this kind of oppurtunistic shit.

I thought socialism cares more about "equality" than "freedom"?

In the Chinese context it is usually described that way.

"Freedom" could also mean "freedom" in the right-wing sense, like the freedom to own the means of production, to exploit others, to harm others for one's own benefit...

Of course, for Marxists equality is primarily economic equality, not just "equality in the abstract". But political equality and basic democratic rights are also very important, as Trotsky stated in his "transitional programme".

I'd say Marxism is primarily about economic equality, rather than "freedom" or "liberation" in the abstract sense. The most important factor for me becoming a Marxist is that I am literally outraged at the massive economic inequality that exists in the world, that some individuals can own more wealth than entire nations.

Of course, Marx also commented about communism being "the free association of free producers", but as I always emphasise, Marxist freedom is primarily material freedom, not abstract freedom, so it is completely dependant on economic equality anyway.

Without economic equality, freedom is frankly meaningless.

Without genuine freedom, economic equality can never be guaranteed.

[Widerstand]

Without economic equality, freedom is frankly meaningless.

Without genuine freedom, economic equality can never be guaranteed.

Why are you so desperately trying to emphasize one over the other when you understand they can't really be separated?

I think what Jazz meant with "equality" was equality before the capitalist jurisdiction tbh.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why are you so desperately trying to emphasize one over the other when you understand they can't really be separated?


Because frankly in the contemporary Chinese context, most people who emphasise "freedom" are right-wing reactionaries.

The cultural context is different.

"Freedom" for most Chinese means "freedom" in the market sense. And the pursuit of this "freedom" has brought about much grief and suffering among the entire Chinese population.

So naturally I am now somewhat wary of the term "freedom".



I think what Jazz meant with "equality" was equality before the capitalist jurisdiction tbh.Ok.

Well Trotsky's transitional programme would suggest that legal equality and democratic rights, even within the current capitalist system, are still important, obviously not as important as actual economic equality, but still important.

Trotskyism is not opposed to genuine reformism. We support every attempt at genuine reform (fight for legal equality, democratic rights, better welfare etc...) within the capitalist system, we only point out that it is fundamentally not enough. But we never in practice oppose the genuine desire for reform, like how Stalin opposed allying with the Social Democrats against the Nazis.

But I think anarchists, being more to the left, might disagree with the transitional programme. If that is the case, then we have to agree to disagree.

[Klaatu]

Homosexuals do no harm to anyone, yet religion harms and warps the minds of millions of children every day.

The world needs "to be freed" from religion, not homosexuality.

[revolution inaction]

for me if you start with the principle of maximising freedom then you will invariably come to communism.

[Queercommie Girl]

for me if you start with the principle of maximising freedom then you will invariably come to communism.

It won't work in mainland China right now. The very term "freedom" is associated with the right-wing there.

For me the primary concern of socialism has always been economic equality.

[revolution inaction]

It won't work in mainland China right now. The very term "freedom" is associated with the right-wing there.

For me the primary concern of socialism has always been economic equality.

Yes and they associate communism with the communist party to, I'm not talking about how people perceive the word, i mean that if you try to devise a way of organising society and the economics, not that these are really separate, then you will eventually come up with communism if your reasoning is sound.

economic equality can't be the defining factor of socialism, because if it where then we come up with absurd conclusions like, everyone would get paid the same wage, or that it would be socialist to make everyone poor.
For me the most important part of socialism is workers control, although i also think that equality (not just economic, racial, sexual etc.) and freedom are of vital importance to.

[Queercommie Girl]

economic equality can't be the defining factor of socialism, because if it where then we come up with absurd conclusions like, everyone would get paid the same wage, or that it would be socialist to make everyone poor.


Well, if income inequality reaches a certain level, you can bet that any kind of genuine socialism would be screwed, even if the income inequality is based only on wage differences and not direct ownership of the means of production.

Which is why Lenin insisted that the maximum wage differential in a socialist society must never exceed 4 times under any circumstance.

It's rather interesting that you automatically associate economic equality with mass poverty, as if only inequality and competition can increase prosperity and productivity. This kind of idea is itself a bourgeois bias.

There is no reason why a society cannot be both equal and prosperous.

"Freedom" can also be problematic if one just solely focuses on that since it can produce absurd implications such as the freedom to exploit others, to harm others at one's own expense etc.

You should know that I explicitly oppose social darwinism, and I partially support the welfare state as it exists under Social Democracy, which I believe is justified by the Trotskyist transitional programme. My idea of a socialist society is one that is based on solidarity and compassion, with general public welfare and general economic equality. Of course, none of this can be achieved without workers' democratic control. But on the other hand, just to have workers' democratic control is not sufficient in itself if the correct political consciousness is not present, every worker is potentially a petit-bourgeois or a bureaucrat. It could degenerate into "all against all free competition". As Lenin pointed out, just because a political organisation consists mostly of workers, it does not automatically make it into a socialist organisation in the Marxist sense. I guess that's where Marxism and anarchism differ.

I believe in the essential elimination of economic competition under socialism, as Marx clearly stated. Competition for me has no real value in itself if it does not satisfy social ends. My primary focus is on productive relation, not productivity. Frankly if socialism actually decreases society's overall productivity compared with capitalism but increases its general equality, then for me that is not a problem at all. Productivity is not the end goal. Not that I like poverty in itself, but I'd rather have an equal and poor society than a grossly unequal and rich one. Frugality to some extent is a virtue anyway, especially in our excessively hedonistically indulgent late capitalist society.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes and they associate communism with the communist party to,


By the way, the majority of the Chinese left today no longer has any real illusions in the CCP regime as it stands now anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

Homosexuals do no harm to anyone, yet religion harms and warps the minds of millions of children every day.

The world needs "to be freed" from religion, not homosexuality.

I'd say that it is class society and not religion that is the real enemy of LGBT rights.

Besides, Marxists believe religion cannot be effectively attacked by attacking it directly, for without changing the underlying socio-economic conditions on which religions emerge one will never get rid of religion no matter how hard one likes to try.

[revolution inaction]

Well, if income inequality reaches a certain level, you can bet that any kind of genuine socialism would be screwed, even if the income inequality is based only on wage differences and not direct ownership of the means of production.

Which is why Lenin insisted that the maximum wage differential in a socialist society must never exceed 4 times under any circumstance.

It's rather interesting that you automatically associate economic equality with mass poverty, as if only inequality and competition can increase prosperity and productivity. This kind of idea is itself a bourgeois bias.

There is no reason why a society cannot be both equal and prosperous.

how could anything i said be interpreted as being against equality? i said


For me the most important part of socialism is workers control, although i also think that equality (not just economic, racial, sexual etc.) and freedom are of vital importance to.

i clearly do not in any way associate equality with poverty, or say anything that could be taken as meaning inequality and compertition could increas prosperity and productivity, it seem to me that you are deliberately distorting what i wrote.

To make it absolutely clear i am against any form of wages and think they have no place in a socialist society, i think that any form of socialism that attempts to maintain wage labour will deteriorate into some capitalism or something similar.

My point was that economic equality by its self does not in any way mean socialism, it is entily posible to come up with situations where economic equality exists but socialism does not, for socialism to exist absolutely demands workers control, and equality for all genders, sexes, sexual preferences, races etc. these things are not in any way optional extras.




"Freedom" can also be problematic if one just solely focuses on that since it can produce absurd implications such as the freedom to exploit others, to harm others at one's own expense etc.

it is clear that no one can have absolute freedom, there is the phrase "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" clearly ther freedom to exploitation others has nothing to do with the freedom which i have been talking about, which is the maximum freedom possible for everyone, exploitation, like murder and rape reduces, freedom of the people who it happens to and clearly contradicts the stated objective.




You should know that I explicitly oppose social darwinism, and I partially support the welfare state as it exists under Social Democracy, which I believe is justified by the Trotskyist transitional programme.

i don't suport any state, look at my tendence, and the transitional program is rediculars.
although that doesn't mean i don't think it is better to live in a country with a welfare state, before i get accused of something mental again.




My idea of a socialist society is one that is based on solidarity and compassion, with general public welfare and general economic equality. Of course, none of this can be achieved without workers' democratic control. But on the other hand, just to have workers' democratic control is not sufficient in itself if the correct political consciousness is not present, every worker is potentially a petit-bourgeois or a bureaucrat. It could degenerate into "all against all free competition". As Lenin pointed out, just because a political organisation consists mostly of workers, it does not automatically make it into a socialist organisation in the Marxist sense. I guess that's where Marxism and anarchism differ.

i don't see how workers control is remotely possible without the workers becoming class conscious and adopting communism, unless you are talking about isolated cases like coops, which are clearly not socalist as they take part in the capitalist economy.

To claim that the difference between anarchism and marxism is marxist recognising the obvious fact the an organisation consisting of workers is not necessary socialist shows either a complete ignorance of anarchism or is simple an insult.




I believe in the essential elimination of economic competition under socialism, as Marx clearly stated. Competition for me has no real value in itself if it does not satisfy social ends. My primary focus is on productive relation, not productivity. Frankly if socialism actually decreases society's overall productivity compared with capitalism but increases its general equality, then for me that is not a problem at all. Productivity is not the end goal. Not that I like poverty in itself, but I'd rather have an equal and poor society than a grossly unequal and rich one. Frugality to some extent is a virtue anyway, especially in our excessively hedonistically indulgent late capitalist society.

i agree with most of this, but i don't think there is any reason why productivity, as least of useful things, should decrease, and i don't see frugality as a virtue, unless you mean to avoid wast.

[revolution inaction]

By the way, the majority of the Chinese left today no longer has any real illusions in the CCP regime as it stands now anyway.
i bet the average chinese person would think of the ccp if they here the word communism though.



I'd say that it is class society and not religion that is the real enemy of LGBT rights.

Besides, Marxists believe religion cannot be effectively attacked by attacking it directly, for without changing the underlying socio-economic conditions on which religions emerge one will never get rid of religion no matter how hard one likes to try.

religion is pretty much the sole reason homosexuality and to a lesser extent sex in general has been considered a bad thing in the west for centuries, and i understand that in many parts of the world these stigmas did not exist until the people there came into contact with westen imperialists. so religion is probably the main reason for most of the homophobia in the world today. I think transphobiar also has similar origins. class society can and has existed without homophobia.

religion is not independent of the rest of society, but that doesn't mean it is something that can simple be ignored till after the revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

religion is pretty much the sole reason homosexuality and to a lesser extent sex in general has been considered a bad thing in the west for centuries, and i understand that in many parts of the world these stigmas did not exist until the people there came into contact with westen imperialists. so religion is probably the main reason for most of the homophobia in the world today. I think transphobiar also has similar origins. class society can and has existed without homophobia.

religion is not independent of the rest of society, but that doesn't mean it is something that can simple be ignored till after the revolution.

This view is a cultural essentialist one, which Marxism rejects.

Essentially you are putting the blame on "Western culture" or "Christianity", rather than fundamentally on capitalism or class society.

Do you really think in pre-modern times, the non-Western non-Christian world was largely free of homophobia and transphobia?

The only time when homophobia and transphobia didn't exist was during the primitive communist era.

Otherwise in every single form of class society that has ever existed, whether "eastern" or "western", there has never been equality for LGBT people.

In Christian culture they torture you or burn you as witches;

In Confucian culture you become a social outcast;

In Buddhist culture you can never really become more than a prostitute;

In modern atheist culture you are beaten up by cops...

Different extents of oppression, sure, but fundamentally still oppression.

LGBT people won't be satisfied with anything less than full equality, just as the working class in general won't be satisfied with merely a "milder" and more "philantropic" form of capitalism.

As long as class society exists, this is impossible. Even if all forms of religion are utterly destroyed.

[Queercommie Girl]

how could anything i said be interpreted as being against equality? i said



i clearly do not in any way associate equality with poverty, or say anything that could be taken as meaning inequality and compertition could increas prosperity and productivity, it seem to me that you are deliberately distorting what i wrote.

To make it absolutely clear i am against any form of wages and think they have no place in a socialist society, i think that any form of socialism that attempts to maintain wage labour will deteriorate into some capitalism or something similar.

My point was that economic equality by its self does not in any way mean socialism, it is entily posible to come up with situations where economic equality exists but socialism does not, for socialism to exist absolutely demands workers control, and equality for all genders, sexes, sexual preferences, races etc. these things are not in any way optional extras.



it is clear that no one can have absolute freedom, there is the phrase "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" clearly ther freedom to exploitation others has nothing to do with the freedom which i have been talking about, which is the maximum freedom possible for everyone, exploitation, like murder and rape reduces, freedom of the people who it happens to and clearly contradicts the stated objective.



i don't suport any state, look at my tendence, and the transitional program is rediculars.
although that doesn't mean i don't think it is better to live in a country with a welfare state, before i get accused of something mental again.



i don't see how workers control is remotely possible without the workers becoming class conscious and adopting communism, unless you are talking about isolated cases like coops, which are clearly not socalist as they take part in the capitalist economy.

To claim that the difference between anarchism and marxism is marxist recognising the obvious fact the an organisation consisting of workers is not necessary socialist shows either a complete ignorance of anarchism or is simple an insult.




i agree with most of this, but i don't think there is any reason why productivity, as least of useful things, should decrease, and i don't see frugality as a virtue, unless you mean to avoid wast.

Sorry if I sounded like I "misunderstood" you. I was making general points, not necessarily directed at you.

On the difference between Marxism and anarchism, I thought anarchism focuses primarily on worker's autonomous organisation rather than vanguardist politics.

As for productivity, I also think in principle under socialism it will increase more than under capitalism, the reason why I emphasise productive relation is because I'm somewhat wary of those who use the productivity-centric argument to dismiss the need for better worker's welfare and democratic control.

I don't think economic equality solely by itself is equivalent to socialism, of course, only that it is the most significant element in socialism.

[Klaatu]

I'd say that it is class society and not religion that is the real enemy of LGBT rights.

Besides, Marxists believe religion cannot be effectively attacked by attacking it directly, for without changing the underlying socio-economic conditions on which religions emerge one will never get rid of religion no matter how hard one likes to try.

I confess that I wrote in anger. I was disgusted with the fact that (some) religionists seem to believe that it is their mission to hold down others for these reasons: __________ (fill in the blank)

But not all religions are like this. I should not be trashing all religious folks, as many of them just like to mind their own business.
A good example of this are the Amish people. They do not get involved in affairs beyond their own community.

[Reznov]

You read the list and you cant help but think to yourself, how are these church maniacs still taken seriously nowadays?

[Who?]

You read the list and you cant help but think to yourself, how are these church maniacs still taken seriously nowadays?

Numbers and money primarily, if you have money and people than you're take seriously. Considering that most churches demand donations from their members many of them are very wealthy and have loads of pull in the political arena. To see the mighty influence of the Mormon church you need to look no further than California, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was one of the largest forces behind Proposition 8; for more information I would recommend you watch this (http://www.mormonproposition.com/) film.

It truly is disgusting.

[Queercommie Girl]

Some straight and cis-gendered people don't seem to understand what LGBT politics is really about.

We are not satisfied if LGBT people are no longer considered "bad", no longer attacked, killed or beaten up. That is not enough. That's like saying it is enough for black rights activism to stop at the point where blacks are no longer lynched and enslaved.

Fuck those conservatives who think realistically LGBT people have already got as much as they rationally could in much of the West. We want full equality, not a single drop less. Otherwise I still consider LGBT people to be under oppression. Just like we won't be satisfied with even the most brilliant forms of social welfare under capitalism, until we get full workers' control of production.

So the fact that Hindu and Buddhist cultures do not kill or demonise LGBT people like Christian cultures do means shit, because LGBT people are still treated unequally under Hinduism and Buddhism. We are not satisfied just because we are not attacked or killed, we demand nothing less than full equality and full respect. A milder form of oppression is still oppression, just like a high-income white-collar is still an exploited worker.

It is ridiculous and utterly stupid to think that it is only "Western Christianity" that is anti-LGBT. The fact of the matter is that all forms of class society are fundamentally anti-LGBT, whether Christian, Confucian, Buddhist or atheist.

[Bilan]

I thought socialism cares more about "equality" than "freedom"?

It depends what is meant by both of those.
Socialists don't care for "bourgeois freedoms" but nor is equality before the bourgeois system a goal either.
To emphasise one above the other in the bourgeois sense of the word is meaningless.



In the Chinese context it is usually described that way.

...
ok?



"Freedom" could also mean "freedom" in the right-wing sense, like the freedom to own the means of production, to exploit others, to harm others for one's own benefit...

That being bourgeois freedom.



Of course, for Marxists equality is primarily economic equality, not just "equality in the abstract". But political equality and basic democratic rights are also very important, as Trotsky stated in his "transitional programme".

Trotsky stating it doesn't make it valid. Even I agree, I find playing to an authoritative figure kind of juvenile.
MAO: Sex is good, but don't do it too often.




I'd say Marxism is primarily about economic equality, rather than "freedom" or "liberation" in the abstract sense.

And how does one reach "economic equality" without being liberated from class structures? Liberation is not interchangable with "freedom": liberation is the act, or process of becoming free. Once you are liberated, you are free and you experience freedom.


material freedom[/B], not abstract freedom, so it is completely dependant on economic equality anyway.

Without economic equality, freedom is frankly meaningless.

Without genuine freedom, economic equality can never be guaranteed.

Without freedom, economic equality is mere servitude. We don't want some, we want it all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Socialists don't care for "bourgeois freedoms" but nor is equality before the bourgeois system a goal either.


It is still however important as a part of the "transitional programme", even though it is not the ultimate goal, just like democratic rights like universal suffrage are still important.




...
ok?
In the Chinese cultural context liberalism is usually assumed to be right-wing.



Trotsky stating it doesn't make it valid. Even I agree, I find playing to an authoritative figure kind of juvenile.
You are missing the point. Just because one quotes Trotsky doesn't mean one believes in the "personality cult" of Trotsky. Otherwise I guess people can never quote anyone anymore?

It's just to show that I agree with Trotsky's transitional programme. I don't even label myself as a Trotskyist, let alone "worship" him.

I am a Marxist, but I am not a dogmatic Marxist ideologue. I'm also a radical pragmatic LGBT activist. Now in many parts of the world LGBT people do not have sufficient democratic rights or legal equality, therefore in the simple pragmatic sense for me it is important to fight for them. Of course, it does not mean I consider these as ends in themselves, because they are not, hence the term transitional in the "transitional programme". But I care much more about actual results on the ground than what a dogmatic ideologue might say about democratic and legal reformism.



MAO: Sex is good, but don't do it too often.
And what the fuck is this kind of meaningless adolescent-style comment about sex supposed to mean? How does it relate to any issue in this thread?



And how does one reach "economic equality" without being liberated from class structures?
I never said "economic equality" is a "magical catch-all word". In fact, I don't believe in any such words, neither equality nor freedom nor liberation.

[Bilan]

It is still however important as a part of the "transitional programme", even though it is not the ultimate goal, just like democratic rights like universal suffrage are still important.


Irrelevant. It's not a goal.



In the Chinese cultural context liberalism is usually assumed to be right-wing.

That is an essentially meaningless statement.
Liberalism is just straight up bourgeois. As Phil Ochs said, 10 degrees to the left of centre when it doesn't effect them and 10 degrees to the right of centre when it effects them personally.




You are missing the point. Just because one quotes Trotsky doesn't mean one believes in the "personality cult" of Trotsky. Otherwise I guess people can never quote anyone anymore?



You can quote all you like, but don't assume it makes anything valid.




I
am a Marxist, but I am not a dogmatic Marxist ideologue. I'm also a radical pragmatic LGBT activist. Now in many parts of the world LGBT people do not have sufficient democratic rights or legal equality, therefore in the simple pragmatic sense for me it is important to fight for them. Of course, it does not mean I consider these as ends in themselves, because they are not, hence the term transitional in the "transitional programme". But I care much more about actual results on the ground than what a dogmatic ideologue might say about democratic and legal reformism.


That is all valid.



And what the fuck is this kind of meaningless adolescent-style comment about sex supposed to mean? How does it relate to any issue in this thread?


T'ink about it.



I never said "economic equality" is a "magical catch-all word". In fact, I don't believe in any such words, neither equality nor freedom nor liberation.

You implied that liberation and economic equality are in opposition to one another.

[Queercommie Girl]

Irrelevant. It's not a goal.


It is still important in a transitional sense, since it is related to real activism on the ground at the moment.



That is an essentially meaningless statement.

Liberalism is just straight up bourgeois. As Phil Ochs said, 10 degrees to the left of centre when it doesn't effect them and 10 degrees to the right of centre when it effects them personally.
I meant that "freedom" in the Chinese context is often understood as right-wing "liberalism".



You can quote all you like, but don't assume it makes anything valid.
I don't justify my belief with a quote, the quote only shows my belief.

I justify my belief with real activism on the ground.



That is all valid.
I don't care whether you think it's "valid" or not. Even if you think it is not "valid" I would still carry on like this.

Your opinion means nothing to me. Don't automatically assume that you are my "comrade".



T'ink about it.
I think it's totally irrelevant Non Sequitur bullshit. Made up by you because you are an anti-Maoist who just likes to make fun of Mao.



You implied that liberation and economic equality are in opposition to one another.No I never said that at all. I only said that economic equality is IMO more important.

[kitsune]

I can't even imagine discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity. It makes no sense to me. Love who you wish, be who you are; how can this ever be wrong?

Maximize happiness, minimize suffering, that's all I care about.

[Queercommie Girl]

I can't even imagine discrimination based on sexual preference or gender identity. It makes no sense to me. Love who you wish, be who you are; how can this ever be wrong?

Maximize happiness, minimize suffering, that's all I care about.

I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the reality of the matter is that many people don't think like you do. So we need analysis to understand why.

[Das war einmal]

Is it morally questionable to suggest burning all of those places to ground?

Would you suggest doing the same thing for Synagogues and Mosques?

[Queercommie Girl]

Would you suggest doing the same thing for Synagogues and Mosques?

It was just expressing a sentiment, doesn't mean he would really do that kind of thing.

Learn to recognise metaphorical speech. It is a good skill.

[Das war einmal]

It was just expressing a sentiment, doesn't mean he would really do that kind of thing.

Learn to recognise metaphorical speech. It is a good skill.

Of course but even suggesting to burn a mosque or a synagogue would not receive any thanks here. Even if it is metaphorical.

That's not to say I don't understand the sentiment.

[Queercommie Girl]

Of course but even suggesting to burn a mosque or a synagogue would not receive any thanks here. Even if it is metaphorical.

That's not to say I don't understand the sentiment.

In principle you are correct, but let's not be utopian about the extent of antagonisms that could exist between different sections of the working class in reality.

After all, 9-11 was pulled off by people from proletarian backgrounds, and also mainly harmed people from proletarian backgrounds...you could even say it was an "internal struggle" within the working class.

[Jazzratt]

It is still important in a transitional sense, since it is related to real activism on the ground at the moment. I've never seen one good reason to believe that transitional strategies are of any use to revolutionaries. The opposite has always seemed true to me.


I meant that "freedom" in the Chinese context is often understood as right-wing "liberalism". Which would be fucking fascinating if either Bilan or I were talking to you in that context. We're not so all you're doing is being irrelevent.


I don't care whether you think it's "valid" or not. Even if you think it is not "valid" I would still carry on like this.

Your opinion means nothing to me. Don't automatically assume that you are my "comrade".
I don't think he's made any such assumption. You're having a discussion with him and he's pointed out a part of your argument he thinks is valid and requires no more comment. You shouldn't feel it behooves you to act like a total prick toward him because of this.


No I never said that at all. I only said that economic equality is IMO more important. I think that the dichotomy you've set up is not only false but is also dangerous. If one only has either equality or "freedom" then it is just as bad as having neither. That is why communists have to demand everything.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've never seen one good reason to believe that transitional strategies are of any use to revolutionaries. The opposite has always seemed true to me.


I'm not just a socialist revolutionary, I'm also a radical LGBT activist. As far as I'm concerned LGBT people are not just "mercenaries" in the revolutionary movement for socialism. LGBT campaigning is important in its own right, even if it's reformist in nature. That is why transitional strategies are important.

It seems to me that many revolutionary socialists (not picking you out personally) don't really care about LGBT activism in itself, they only want LGBT people to serve the interests of the socialist movement in general. While I clearly care about a lot more than just LGBT issues, for me LGBT activism has an intrinsic importance, it does not play "second fiddle" to socialist activism in general.

Besides, transitional strategies are embraced by Trotskyists and Trotskyism-leaning socialists like me. Don't think anarchists like you are somehow central to the socialist/communist movement, because you are not. The Trots are far more central to the movement as a whole than you are. I've worked with many Trots as well as some Maoists, but I've yet to meet a single anarchist in real life.

[Thirsty Crow]

It won't work in mainland China right now. The very term "freedom" is associated with the right-wing there.

For me the primary concern of socialism has always been economic equality.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I assume that in pretty much every post-socialist East European country the right-wing did exactly the same - established cultural hegemony. But I think concepts and their practical meaning should be fought for. So abandoning the focus on liberation just seems like defeatism to me, frankly (and I know that many comrades or could-be-comrades in Europe have shown signs of this defeatism - so you shouldn't interpret my comment as a criticism directed solely at the Chinese).

On topic: these guys are abominable. I hope that some organization will lash out against them and start a media campaign.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've never seen one good reason to believe that transitional strategies are of any use to revolutionaries. The opposite has always seemed true to me.


To use LGBT politics as an example, today's LGBT people of all kinds suffer discrimination virtually everywhere. Are you telling me that it is useless for LGBT people to fight against this kind of formal discrimination in the system and struggle for greater equality? That rather LGBT people should just accept their fate for now and solely struggle for revolutionary communism hoping that once a successful revolution is pulled off then discrimination and the like would "automatically" disappear?

As I said, LGBT people are not the "mercenaries" of the revolutionary socialist movement. Our own issues are important in their own right.

But I don't think arguing with you over transitional strategies is ever going to be fruitful. We could spend 100,000 posts to argue over it back and forth, but a Trotskyite like me who supports entryism and co-operation with genuine reformism is never going to convince an ultra-left anarchist like you about the virtues of the transitional programme, and obviously vice versa.

So let's just agree to disagree.



Which would be fucking fascinating if either Bilan or I were talking to you in that context. We're not so all you're doing is being irrelevent.


But for a Chinese person, "freedom" is usually understood in the right-wing context, even if you don't mean it that way subjectively. Objectively it would still likely be misunderstood by Chinese people.

But Geez...is it really worth it to start getting personal over a relatively minor debate over semantics? As a pragmatist, I don't even consider the semantical use of terms like "liberation" etc to be so important. I care much more about actual activism on the ground.



I don't think he's made any such assumption. You're having a discussion with him and he's pointed out a part of your argument he thinks is valid and requires no more comment. You shouldn't feel it behooves you to act like a total prick toward him because of this.


Calling me a "prick" here is certainly un-called for. Because I wasn't being personal at all, perhaps you've mis-interpreted my words here. (Besides, English is my second language so I'm not knowledgable about slang terms - but do you ever call a woman a "prick" in the English language?)

I was just making an objective point. While I am certainly not anti-anarchist and I am prepared to ally with anarchist forces in certain areas, I do not consider anarchists and left communists to be my comrades. There is nothing personal in that, it's simply that there is too many disagreements.

Also, I don't totally trust the anarchists when it comes to LGBT activism, again, nothing personal here. It's just that I think generally speaking the Trots are actually more sincere and serious when it comes to LGBT politics.



I think that the dichotomy you've set up is not only false but is also dangerous. If one only has either equality or "freedom" then it is just as bad as having neither. That is why communists have to demand everything.


Ok, but actually in this thread it was you who first set up a dichotomy between "equality" and "liberation". For you said:

Ha! They wouldn't fucking know it. Then again even if they included transgender issues on their agenda it would still be a pile of class collaborationist bullshit. Ultimately groups that fight for "equality" (as opposed to liberation) are doomed to this kind of oppurtunistic shit.

[revolution inaction]

This view is a cultural essentialist one, which Marxism rejects.

this is nothing more than an insult




Essentially you are putting the blame on "Western culture" or "Christianity", rather than fundamentally on capitalism or class society.

Do you really think in pre-modern times, the non-Western non-Christian world was largely free of homophobia and transphobia?


no thats not what i am doing, Judaism and Islam are also extremely homophobic, and other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism also have homophobic idears. My point is that there were societies where homosexuality was not see as a negative thing, or was not considered anything like as negative as it was by Christianity, christianity is the origin of a significant part of modern anti LGBTQ prejudice, even if not the sole cause.




The only time when homophobia and transphobia didn't exist was during the primitive communist era.

Otherwise in every single form of class society that has ever existed, whether "eastern" or "western", there has never been equality for LGBT people.

In Christian culture they torture you or burn you as witches;

In Confucian culture you become a social outcast;

In Buddhist culture you can never really become more than a prostitute;

In modern atheist culture you are beaten up by cops...

Different extents of oppression, sure, but fundamentally still oppression.

making general statements about how primative communism was is absurd especially given that we have no records of this period.

in europe homosexuality was publishable by burning, there was no need to accuse them of witch craft, far far more people were burned for things like heresy than witch craft.

i think what you say back up my point rather, there is a massive difference between burning someone to death and the other examples.



LGBT people won't be satisfied with anything less than full equality, just as the working class in general won't be satisfied with merely a "milder" and more "philantropic" form of capitalism.

i'm not sure why you are telling me this, it shouldn't even need saying, I think its a given for any whos serious about anarchist/communist politics




As long as class society exists, this is impossible. Even if all forms of religion are utterly destroyed.

i see no reason that capitalism could not operate perfectly fine with or without such discrimination, it can use discrimination against lgbtg's but it doesn't have to.

[Queercommie Girl]

this is nothing more than an insult


It's not an insult, it's just to show that your views are wrong.



no thats not what i am doing, Judaism and Islam are also extremely homophobic, and other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism also have homophobic idears. My point is that there were societies where homosexuality was not see as a negative thing, or was not considered anything like as negative as it was by Christianity, christianity is the origin of a significant part of modern anti LGBTQ prejudice, even if not the sole cause.


I don't accept that Christianity is qualitatively different from the other religions.



making general statements about how primative communism was is absurd especially given that we have no records of this period.


This is just a sign of your ignorance. Actually we have plenty of evidence about how it was like for LGBT people during the primitive communist era, for instance among the native American tribes which the European colonists had contact with.

There is also plenty of evidence from archaeology and anthropology, for example this one:

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html

Individuality and gender relations

The burial objects found in the graves emphasize not only social equality since they differ only marginally concerning their quantity and character (Mellaart 1967: 206) but also confirm the individual differences between persons. The burial objects even vary within one living space (Mellaart 1963: 100f.) and thus rather document differences between individuals than differences due to membership of different classes (Childe 1952: 143-144).
Mellaart could not imagine the societal wealth he found to be generally, equally distributed. Therefore he presumed that the area he excavated was the quarter of the priests, and in the rest of the town circumstances must have been poorer. This was an assumption which could be rejected with good arguments especially after the results of skeleton examinations had been published by Angel in 1971. Already in 1969, it was demonstrated that the collective findings were easier to reconcile with a society without stratification (Narr 1969: 12/2, see esp. Grünert 1982: 194, Hermann 1983: 65-68, and, on the basis of Mellaart's results: Hummel 1996: 269). Hodder's early investigations proved that Çatalhöyük looked everywhere as it did in the area excavated by Mellaart (Hodder 1996b: 360/2-361/1, Balter 1998: 1443/2, Hodder 2003: 10). This means that in Çatalhöyük those differences between people are absent that are so striking in a society divided into classes. Archaeologists accordingly describe this society as egalitarian (Balter 1999: 891/3, Moore 1998) or discuss subtle differences between an egalitarian and a stratified society (for a stratified society: Wason 1994: 153-179, for a society in between: Hodder 1996b: 366/2, for a purely egalitarian society: Hamilton 1996: 262/2). Here, Naomi Hamilton finds the resolving words for this discussion: "Difference need not mean structural inequality. Ranking by age, achieved status, social roles based on skill and knowledge etc. do not necessarily contradict an egalitarian ethos."
The graves in Çatalhöyük already show that a social division of labour was missing since the dead were given tools for various activities of basic production and in each house there were seeds (Connolly 1999: 798/2). However, it can also be seen that people were partially specialized according to their aptitudes in skilled activities that exceeded basic production, from burial objects such as painting utensils or copper (Mellaart 1967: 209). Presumably by producing ceramics, people in Çatalhöyük had discovered how to smelt metallic copper from copper ore, as documented by the preserved slag (Mellaart 1967: 217-218).
There is a striking difference to class societies: burial objects were not produced explicitly for burials, but they rather were goods which people had used during their lives and which were left to them in death (Mellaart 1967: 209). This also holds true for objects which truly are at the end of the "gradual spectrum". Perfectly crafted flint daggers, mirrors sanded from obsidian that were more brilliant than antique metal mirrors (Mellaart 1967: pl. XIV and XII) as well as flawless tools made from obsidian (Hamblin 1975: 17), all of them found in graves: they document both the deployed different preferences and abilities of people who were able to produce them and the respect of their fellow human beings who left these objects to them in their graves instead of retaining them for themselves. Pieces like these led Mellaart to the assumption that they could have been produced in this perfection only by full specialists, particularly since he did not find any midden resulting from production (Mellaart 1967: 211, Balter 1998: 1443/2). During the new excavations specific attention was paid, therefore, to microscopic traces of midden in the clay floors, and domestic waste was analyzed. In this way, evidence could be provided for midden resulting from working on stones. This means that manufacturing stones was not the task of full specialists but was conducted in every household, or associated households in the case of complex production processes that were possible only collectively (Connolly 1999: 798-799, also see Balter 1998: 1443/2 and Hodder 1999: 6/1). Burial objects that were found in a house had been produced and used in that house and been buried with the person who had manufactured and used them. Hodder draws the conclusion that "we cannot argue for total control of production by an elite" (Hodder 1996b: 361/2).
Just like the "living houses" that changed with their inhabitants and were adapted to changing living circumstances, this attachment of people to the objects of daily life conveys an integrated image of organic structures and vital coherences.
Truly outstanding and especially remarkable is the fact that women, too, received tools as burial objects, just as men did (Mellaart 1967: 209) (Footnote:This seems to have held true for neolithic civilizations in general, even for Central European linear pottery culture (linearbandkeramik) (Nordholz 2004: 124). However, this interrelation rarely seems to be observed. (http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn6) 6). In later class societies, men (of the "middle classes") received burial objects that allowed conclusions as to their profession but women's graves contained only jewellery: rich women were given rich jewellery, poor women poor jewellery. That these women worked just as hard - if not even harder - than men is not reflected in the burial objects. The tools in neolithic women graves illustrate that women were recognized as equals as a matter of course in the production of goods. This, in turn, supports the assumption that in this society the antagonism between production and reproduction was abolished. There are mural paintings in Çatalhöyük that complement and confirm this assumption; they show men dancing with children (Mellaart 1966: pl. LIV, LV, LIX, LXI), a motif that does not occur in class society until the 13th century B.C. and also later only led a shadowy existence. Also, in contrast to Mellaart's statement, not only women were buried with children but men also (Hamilton 1996: 253/1).
However, not only were women buried with tools but also men were buried with jewellery, partially with considerable amounts (Hamilton 1996: 262) (Fussnote:Mellaart's converse argument stems from the fact that he frequently determined the sex of the skeletons according to their grave goods (!). It was only after Angel's anatomical examinations of the skeletons six years after that the true facts were revealed (Hamilton 1996: 245/2, 258/2). (http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn7) 7). Naomi Hamilton who in Hodder's team is responsible for working with the graves and therefore for analyzing gender relations, doubts if the definition of a social gender apart from biological sex is at all helpful in the discussion on Çatalhöyük. She regards the concept of gender as bound to our times and their problems and considers the possibility that neolithic humans did not perceive man and woman as being a polarity (Hamilton 1996: 262). Indeed, already in 1990 Hodder developed the thought that the decisive polarity for neolithic perception may have been of a different nature (Hodder 1990). It is interesting that more recent considerations lead to an analogous assumption concerning the Palaeolithic (Heidefrau 2004). The author, Elke Heidefrau, writes: "Possibly, the discussion on gender ... mainly reveals something about our own culture: a culture in which it seems immensely important to know sex of another person (see the first question asked after the birth of a child). To us, a culture in which this is not the case seems almost unthinkable; therefore, such thoughts could open new horizons to us and thus enrich the current gender discussion!" (Heidefrau 2004: 148; translated). Obviously, at that time the real individuals were at the centre, and when they liked to adorn themselves their jewellery was not taken away from them when they died - regardless of their sex. And it was people who produced, possessed and used tools and therefore also kept them in their graves - again, regardless of their sex.
Hodder dedicated a separate publication to gender relations in order to refute the older conceptions of a matriarchy in Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2004). In this article in "Scientific American" he presents an impressive documentation of gender equality in Çatalhöyük: there were no significant differences concerning nutrition, body height and life style between men and women. Men and women performed very similar tasks, as can be deduced from the abrasion of bones. Both sexes stayed in and outside the house equally long and were equally active in the kitchen as in tool production. There are no hints pointing to a gender-related division of labour. It is only from artwork that one can deduce that outside the house, men hunted whereas women engaged in agriculture (cf. Hodder). Mural paintings show, however, women together with men in depictions of chase, as published in Mellaart's excavation reports (Mellaart 1966: Pl LIIb, LVIb, LXIIb). And the equal burial of men and women sealed equality even in death.
I recommend this book to you so you are not so ignorant about the history of LGBT people anymore:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11338

Frankly this is one reason why I am not an anarchist. (Of course there are many other reasons) Because while you claim to be supportive of LGBT rights, in reality you don't really do that much. As a pragmatist I always judge people by what they do, not by their political slogans. Compared with the Trotskyists who have detailed and extensive historical analysis of the origin of LGBT oppression, you don't even seem to know the basics.

As I said, anarchists for me is best an ally, but you are not my comrades.



in europe homosexuality was publishable by burning, there was no need to accuse them of witch craft, far far more people were burned for things like heresy than witch craft.


So why is Europe so different? Why of all the cultures of the world, only Europe is severely homophobic and transphobic as you seem to claim? With your kind of culture-based rather than class-based analysis, I don't think you can really adequately explain it.



i think what you say back up my point rather, there is a massive difference between burning someone to death and the other examples.


Difference is only quantitative, not qualitative, especially since in countries like feudal Confucian China during many periods homosexuality was explicitly illegal just like it was in feudal Europe, albeit for supposedly a different type of legal reason.



i see no reason that capitalism could not operate perfectly fine with or without such discrimination, it can use discrimination against lgbtg's but it doesn't have to.

That's because you don't seem to recognise the origin of LGBT oppression. LGBT oppression didn't exist during the primitive communist era as far as we know, it emerged as patriarchy and class society emerged. LGBT oppression exists essentially because class society is fundamentally based on sexism, the private family and private property. As long as these things don't go away, LGBT oppression will not go away. And as long as capitalism exists, these things will not go away.

[Bilan]

It is still important in a transitional sense, since it is related to real activism on the ground at the moment.

Not. relevant.



I meant that "freedom" in the Chinese context is often understood as right-wing "liberalism".

I'm still not sure what China has to do with this.



I don't justify my belief with a quote, the quote only shows my belief.

I justify my belief with real activism on the ground.

...okay.



I don't care whether you think it's "valid" or not. Even if you think it is not "valid" I would still carry on like this.

Would you carry on like this if no one thought it was valid?



Your opinion means nothing to me. Don't automatically assume that you are my "comrade".


Don't assume that you're mine. Just because I recognise the validity of a statement doesn't make you my comrade.
But if you want to be like that...well, frankly, I don't give a fuck.


I think it's totally irrelevant Non Sequitur bullshit. Made up by you because you are an anti-Maoist who just likes to make fun of Mao.

It's from May 68 and I was making fun of you quoting people, and acting like doing so makes anything valid/interesting.
Trotsky could say the sun shines out of your arse, but that wouldn't make it true.



No I never said that at all. I only said that economic equality is IMO more important.

You're still assuming that there is a dichotomy between the two.
How is one emancipated from economic inequality if not by liberation? by emancipation? by any other synonym? Go through the list.

Edit: Jazzratt get's shit.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not. relevant.


It's very relevant for LGBT people who face discrimination every day.



I'm still not sure what China has to do with this.
I am Chinese so I don't think about the term "freedom" in the same way that you do.



Would you carry on like this if no one thought it was valid?
But is this kind of hypothetical scenario even realistic at all?

Anyone can imagine anything they like but if the scenario is unrealistic than it is totally useless and meaningless. That's pragmatism for you.

I would certainly carry on if every anarchist and left communist thought it was not valid, because I don't really care what anarchists may think. But I don't think most other socialists and Marxists would ever consider it to be invalid, especially those who do believe in co-operating with genuine reformism, the transitional programme, and entryism, such as Trotskyists and other Marxists influenced by Trotskyism. Not to mention most of the politically engaged sections of the LGBT community itself.

Your question here is meaningless because it is an impossible scenario. It's like asking "what would you do if the sun rises from the west tomorrow morning"?



Don't assume that you're mine. Just because I recognise the validity of a statement doesn't make you my comrade.

But if you want to be like that...well, frankly, I don't give a fuck.
I don't, which is what I said.

However, don't take it personally, because I also said it is not personal.



It's from May 68 and I was making fun of you quoting people, and acting like doing so makes anything valid/interesting.
There is nothing wrong with quoting people per se, it's not equivalent to "personality worship", which I don't agree with.



Trotsky could say the sun shines out of your arse, but that wouldn't make it true.
And this kind of ridiculous childish insult make you look like a dumb-ass.



You're still assuming that there is a dichotomy between the two.
How is one emancipated from economic inequality if not by liberation? by emancipation? by any other synonym? Go through the list.
As I said, in this thread it was actually Jazzratt who first created an explicit dichotomy between liberation and equality.



Edit: Jazzratt get's shit.
??

[Bilan]

It's very relevant for LGBT people who face discrimination every day.

You're just plain and simply missing the point.



I am Chinese so I don't think about the term "freedom" in the same way that you do.

And?



But is this kind of hypothetical scenario even realistic at all?

I didn't say it was realistic. I asked you a simple hypothetical question.



Anyone can imagine anything they like but if the scenario is unrealistic than it is totally useless and meaningless. That's pragmatism for you.

That is called "dodging the question" and "missing the point".



I would certainly carry on if every anarchist and left communist thought it was not valid, because I don't really care what anarchists may think. But I don't think most other socialists and Marxists would ever consider it to be invalid, especially those who do believe in co-operating with genuine reformism, the transitional programme, and entryism, such as Trotskyists and other Marxists influenced by Trotskyism. Not to mention most of the politically engaged sections of the LGBT community itself.

So you're saying that anarchists and marxists just subscribe to an ideology with no inherent relation to the material circumstances; that class conscious and class struggle are just derived from a desire of communists and anarchists to change the world in an idealistic sense; that, rather than reformism having little impact anymore, it plays a major, if not more important role than liberation?


Y
our question here is meaningless because it is an impossible scenario. It's like asking "what would you do if the sun rises from the west tomorrow morning"?

You missed the point completely.



I don't, which is what I said.

However, don't take it personally, because I also said it is not personal.

I'm not taking t personally, I just think you're a self important arse.



There is nothing wrong with quoting people per se, it's not equivalent to "personality worship", which I don't agree with.

No one said there is. Respond properly or don't respond at all all.



As I said, in this thread it was actually Jazzratt who first created an explicit dichotomy between liberation and equality.

Even if that is the case, it seems to be you who actually believes that to be the case.

[Queercommie Girl]

You're just plain and simply missing the point.


Which is what?

All I'm saying is that class reductionism doesn't work, transitional strategies are important for oppressed minority groups.



And?
To assume that everyone understands "freedom" in the same way as Western leftists is obviously very prone to mis-interpretation.



I didn't say it was realistic. I asked you a simple hypothetical question.
I'm a pragmatist. If a hypothetical question is not even realistic, then it is a waste of time to consider it.



That is called "dodging the question" and "missing the point".
Because the question itself is bogus.



So you're saying that anarchists and marxists just subscribe to an ideology with no inherent relation to the material circumstances; that class conscious and class struggle are just derived from a desire of communists and anarchists to change the world in an idealistic sense; that, rather than reformism having little impact anymore, it plays a major, if not more important role than liberation?
Is that what you think transitional strategies are?

Just because I don't subscribe to ideological dogmatism doesn't mean I don't consider ideological principles to be important; Just because I don't believe in simplistic class reductionism doesn't mean I don't think class factors are the ultimate causes of all kinds of inequality; Just because I co-operate with reformism doesn't mean I consider the reformist approach to be central; Just because I work with issues other than direct class struggle doesn't mean I don't consider class struggle to be the key.



You missed the point completely.
My point is simple: your question is unrealistic, because I don't think every socialist would become an ultra-leftist.



I'm not taking t personally, I just think you're a self important arse.
If you want to make this thread degenerate into a personal attack shitstorm, that's your choice, not mine.



No one said there is. Respond properly or don't respond at all all.
So what do you have against occasionally quoting from historical Marxists anyway? And why is this so important anyway? You are just blowing the whole thing out of proportion.



Even if that is the case, it seems to be you who actually believes that to be the case.But actually I was never counter-posing liberation to equality, only giving them different weights. That's different.

[Bilan]

Which is what?

That it's not relevant.



All I'm saying is that class reductionism doesn't work, transitional strategies are important for oppressed minority groups.

No one denied that.



To assume that everyone understands "freedom" in the same way as Western leftists is obviously very prone to mis-interpretation.

There is so much wrong with what you just said it's not even fucking funny.
You seem to have no qualms with using "right wing", which is a word with a history that most people who casually throw that word around wouldn't even have a clue about. And in addition to that, the meaning of "right wing" is subjective.
But you seem to have no qualms with using that.

Further, the fact that in China there isn't an equivalent of the word in english isn't of any interest either.
There are lots of words in German, for example, that don't have an English equivalent which denotes the same thing.
Does that mean we don't use that German word? No. It means you explain it.

But assuming we have to abandon a word because of the way it is understood in China is frankly ridiculous.



I'm a pragmatist. If a hypothetical question is not even realistic, then it is a waste of time to consider it.

Psh.


Is that what you think transitional strategies are?


No.

[Jazzratt]

Ok, but actually in this thread it was you who first set up a dichotomy between "equality" and "liberation". For you said:

Ha! They wouldn't fucking know it. Then again even if they included transgender issues on their agenda it would still be a pile of class collaborationist bullshit. Ultimately groups that fight for "equality" (as opposed to liberation) are doomed to this kind of oppurtunistic shit. The thing is that "liberation" includes both freedom and equality. The demand for equality of the various class-collaborationist identity politics groups is what I was critisising. It's that sort of shit that allows the "queer movement" to be subsumed by and used by the bourgeoisie. That's what I was brining up.

[Queercommie Girl]

That it's not relevant.


Could you ever give out more than just one-line answers? What exactly is it that is "not relevant"? "Relevant" for what and for whom?



No one denied that.


But if you totally reject transitional strategies, it seems you are assuming a purely class reductionist perspective, namely that any work which is not directly useful for revolutionary socialism must be useless.



There is so much wrong with what you just said it's not even fucking funny.
You seem to have no qualms with using "right wing", which is a word with a history that most people who casually throw that word around wouldn't even have a clue about. And in addition to that, the meaning of "right wing" is subjective.

But you seem to have no qualms with using that.

Further, the fact that in China there isn't an equivalent of the word in english isn't of any interest either.

There are lots of words in German, for example, that don't have an English equivalent which denotes the same thing.

Does that mean we don't use that German word? No. It means you explain it.

But assuming we have to abandon a word because of the way it is understood in China is frankly ridiculous.


It's funny you could write so much and become agitated over such a minor semantical point.

"Right-wing" in the Chinese context is pretty much the same as it is in the Western context, but "freedom" is not.

However, I never ever said anywhere that you should abandon the term. What a ridiculous accusation you are making. I'm just saying maybe a little bit of clarification is in order, otherwise it might lead to mis-interpretation (through no-one's fault), that's all I meant.



Psh.


Is there anything wrong in what I said? I don't think so. It's the correct materialist approach to only focus on things that are realistic in material reality.



No.


But it seems in your previous post you accused me of being a reformist.

For you said:

that, rather than reformism having little impact anymore, it plays a major, if not more important role than liberation?

[Queercommie Girl]

The demand for equality of the various class-collaborationist identity politics groups is what I was critisising. It's that sort of shit that allows the "queer movement" to be subsumed by and used by the bourgeoisie. That's what I was brining up.


Ok. While I certainly don't agree with a class-collaborationist approach (which as things stand now always tends to downplay the importance of trans rights anyway), we still need to engage with queer people who might still have illusions in class-collaborationism. That's part of Trotskyist entryism: work with people, even in an organisational sense, who have ideologies which are frankly wrong in many ways, in order to both convince people of the correct socialist analysis and to increase one's own political power and influence.

This is why Trotskyist parties like the British SWP don't even completely write-off Stonewall. It doesn't mean they agree with them in any genuine way, just that strategically they still see the organisation as having some use from an entryist perspective.

[L.A.P.]

It's just down right disgusting, I'm sick of all these people thinking that everyone should be the same if someone want to use their dick in a certain way why is it everyone else's business. Homosexuals are not hurting anyone, if you don't like their way of life then fuck off and have fun practicing abstinence.

[Bilan]

Could you ever give out more than just one-line answers? What exactly is it that is "not relevant"? "Relevant" for what and for whom?

There's no need. If something is irrelevant, I am not going to address it and help to send everything off topic.





But if you totally reject transitional strategies, it seems you are assuming a purely class reductionist perspective, namely that any work which is not directly useful for revolutionary socialism must be useless.

If it's not useful to socialism I am not going to throw myself behind it, but more to the point, I am not going to foster any illusions about how far you can take it.


It's funny you could write so much and become agitated over such a minor semantical point.


It's hardly minor. You're going on about how you understand freedom in a different way because of where you're from, but when using a term like "Right wing", you say:


"Right-wing" in the Chinese context is pretty much the same as it is in the Western context, but "freedom" is not.

Which I will respond by saying: bullshit. There is no consistent definition of the word. The "right wing" does not have consistent characteristics, or any "specific" characteristics.


However, I never ever said anywhere that you should abandon the term. What a ridiculous accusation you are making. I'm just saying maybe a little bit of clarification is in order, otherwise it might lead to mis-interpretation (through no-one's fault), that's all I meant.


Where did you say that?





But it seems in your previous post you accused me of being a reformist.

For you said:

that, rather than reformism having little impact anymore, it plays a major, if not more important role than liberation?

And it seems you've jumped from 'transitional stages' to 'reformism' as if there is no difference between the two.

[Queercommie Girl]

If it's not useful to socialism I am not going to throw myself behind it, but more to the point, I am not going to foster any illusions about how far you can take it.


Easy for a heterosexual cisgendered white male like you to say a thing like this, since you are no first-hand experience of the kind of oppression ethnic and sexual minorities suffer.

So I guess you don't support any mass political movement against sexism, racism, homophobia/transphobia then? Someone who fail to recognise the importance of other people's political issues is just what we need to promote working class unity.

Despite claiming that you are not a class reductionist, your views here are indeed class-reductionist.



It's hardly minor. You're going on about how you understand freedom in a different way because of where you're from, but when using a term like "Right wing", you say:

Which I will respond by saying: bullshit. There is no consistent definition of the word. The "right wing" does not have consistent characteristics, or any "specific" characteristics.
I didn't say the definition of the term is consistent. All I said was that as far as we are concerned here in the Chinese socialist context "right-wing" largely means the same kind of thing as "right-wing" in the Western socialist context.

Besides, we are not even talking about the term "right-wing", but rather the term "freedom". What's the point of going off topic?

If there is no consistent definition of "right-wing", there is no consistent definition of "freedom" either, something you fail to recognise.



Where did you say that?
You accused me for trying to suggest that the term "freedom" should not even be used, whereas in fact I've never suggested such a thing.



And it seems you've jumped from 'transitional stages' to 'reformism' as if there is no difference between the two.More senseless slander from you, since I've never done such a thing. Show me where I've suggested that there is no difference between "transitional stages" and "reformism" in this thread?

[Bilan]

Iseul, you're not proving anything by making inane assumptions or putting words in my mouth - particularly things like "so you don't support any movements against sexism, etc". IT has been something you've been consistently trying to do, and I'm afraid I'm not going to bite.

Similarly, you missed the point about 'right wing' and the irony of you using that. You make the assumption that in China and 'the West' it is the same thing. Whereas with the term 'freedom' you're aware that there is a difference, with other terms, you seem to think everyones on the same page.
I suppose the easiest way of putting it is that there is no consistent understanding of the meaning of the term.
Just a lot of assumptions.

I think you ought to critically analyse your own posts before jumping on mine.

[Klaatu]

I could be wrong, but wasn't homosexuality generally accepted in ancient Greece? Does anyone know anything about this?

[anticap]

I could be wrong, but wasn't homosexuality generally accepted in ancient Greece? Does anyone know anything about this?

I was under the impression that pederasty was a common and accepted practice.

[Klaatu]

Pederasty and pedophilia may also have been common throughout the Middle Ages in the Catholic Church too. It is just now they are getting caught in the act.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

That seemed very Clockwork Orange to me

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, you're not proving anything by making inane assumptions or putting words in my mouth - particularly things like "so you don't support any movements against sexism, etc". IT has been something you've been consistently trying to do, and I'm afraid I'm not going to bite.

Similarly, you missed the point about 'right wing' and the irony of you using that. You make the assumption that in China and 'the West' it is the same thing. Whereas with the term 'freedom' you're aware that there is a difference, with other terms, you seem to think everyones on the same page.
I suppose the easiest way of putting it is that there is no consistent understanding of the meaning of the term.
Just a lot of assumptions.

I think you ought to critically analyse your own posts before jumping on mine.

I don't really care about meaningless semantical debates over words like "freedom" and "right-wing" etc in the intrinsic sense.

The bottom line is that my political stance is such that:

1) I am a radical LGBT activist. I believe LGBT activism has an intrinsic worth in its own right and we are not just "mercenaries" of the socialist movement in general. And I don't agree with mechanical class reductionism.

2) I believe in the "transitional programme" and "entryism" in the Trotskyist sense, including their application to LGBT politics. This is not by any means "reformism". Personally I don't believe in class collaborationism when it comes to queer politics, but I'm willing to seriously engage with individual queers who still have illusions about exclusive reformism within the capitalist social structure, and I'm even willing to work with pro-establishment institutions like Stonewall for this purpose.

This is what I really care about, not some abstract debate about the meaning of the word "freedom".

[revolution inaction]

ok i haven't read your recent post in full, which is why it didnt reply up till now but there is some thing i wanted to comment on.



Organisation: Supporter of CWI, SWP (UK), MCPC (Maoist Communist Party of China) and PS





Frankly this is one reason why I am not an anarchist. (Of course there are many other reasons) Because while you claim to be supportive of LGBT rights, in reality you don't really do that much. As a pragmatist I always judge people by what they do, not by their political slogans. Compared with the Trotskyists who have detailed and extensive historical analysis of the origin of LGBT oppression, you don't even seem to know the basics.





"I'm in favour of defending gay rights… But I am not prepared to have it as a shibboleth"


you have no idea what anarchists do, but you prefer the trots because they have written something long about lgbt oppression, which may be vary good, i have no idea, i haven't read it, despite the fact that they will abandon any principle for short term gain.





As I said, anarchists for me is best an ally, but you are not my comrades.



no, we are revolutionaries

[Queercommie Girl]

you have no idea what anarchists do, but you prefer the trots because they have written something long about lgbt oppression, which may be vary good, i have no idea, i haven't read it, despite the fact that they will abandon any principle for short term gain.


Well, I'm not anti-anarchist, but it is up to you to show me how you are better regarding LGBT rights than the Trots. I won't automatically support anyone. Why should I just automatically assume a certain political tendency *must be* pro-LGBT? Respect needs to be earned.

Sorry, but so far I haven't seen any really good anarchist line on LGBT issues. So you can't blame me for not supporting the anarchists as far as this area is concerned. It's not my obligation to be thoroughly versed in every single political tendency on the left that is out there, it is your obligation as anarchists to convince me of your better political line regarding LGBT issues if you want to say that you are better than the Trots.

Frankly, your anti-Trot line here is somewhat unfair and unobjective. To say that Trots are "unprincipled" is rather ridiculous considering most Maoists and Stalinists believe one of the primary problems of the Trots is that they are too principled and not flexible enough.

And I don't see how that short quote by Lindsay German means anything one way or another. I'm not into petty little sectarian games.

If you want to make a formal accusation against Trotskyists in general, you need to provide real concrete evidence, which you have not done at all here. After all, the Trots at least did produce a detailed analysis of LGBT issues, which AFAIK no anarchist has ever done. Does this mean every single Trot out there is pro-LGBT rights? Of course not. But in general they seem to have got the right idea.

I don't even know what your anarchist official position on LGBT issues is. I've enquired about this before, but got no response. So I think perhaps you don't consider LGBT politics to be such a serious issue.



no, we are revolutionaries
It sounds like you are implicitly accusing me of "not being a revolutionary". Why not? Just because I consider LGBT rights to be serious and important in their own rights, and not just something attached to a revolutionary socialist program? If that is the case, then well now I trust you anarchists even less when it comes to LGBT politics than I did before.

LGBT oppression won't automatically go away even after a completely genuine socialist revolution. Make no mistake, I do not rule out the possibility of joining the "counter-revolutionary" side strategically just to defend LGBT rights if your anarchist revolutionary government (or any other revolutionary government) becomes explicitly homophobic and transphobic.

If it's because of my belief in "transitional strategies" and my willingness to work with genuine reformists, then to be frank with you in the pragmatic sense sometimes I'd rather work with genuine reformists than ultra-leftists. I am a pragmatist, which means I seem like an "opportunist" in the eyes of ultra-leftists like you, but I don't care what you think about me.

[revolution inaction]

Well, I'm not anti-anarchist, but it is up to you to show me how you are better regarding LGBT rights than the Trots. I won't automatically support anyone. Why should I just automatically assume a certain political tendency *must be* pro-LGBT? Respect needs to be earned.

but it is ok to automatically assume that one is not?



Sorry, but so far I haven't seen any really good anarchist line on LGBT issues. So you can't blame me for not supporting the anarchists as far as this area is concerned. It's not my obligation to be thoroughly versed in every single political tendency on the left that is out there, it is your obligation as anarchists to convince me of your better political line regarding LGBT issues if you want to say that you are better than the Trots.

if you want to claim that we are not serious then you should be better informed.



Frankly, your anti-Trot line here is somewhat unfair and unobjective. To say that Trots are "unprincipled" is rather ridiculous considering most Maoists and Stalinists believe one of the primary problems of the Trots is that they are too principled and not flexible enough.

why should i give a shit what maoists and stalinists think? their politics are reactionary



And I don't see how that short quote by Lindsay German means anything one way or another. I'm not into petty little sectarian games.

she was talking about alliances with homophobic groups




If you want to make a formal accusation against Trotskyists in general, you need to provide real concrete evidence, which you have not done at all here. After all, the Trots at least did produce a detailed analysis of LGBT issues, which AFAIK no anarchist has ever done. Does this mean every single Trot out there is pro-LGBT rights? Of course not. But in general they seem to have got the right idea.

I don't even know what your anarchist official position on LGBT issues is. I've enquired about this before, but got no response. So I think perhaps you don't consider LGBT politics to be such a serious issue.

you show me the official trot position on lgbt issues and i'll show you the anarchist one :D

in the mean time here is the AF's aims and principles, which everyone who wants to join is required to understand and agree with

http://afed.org.uk/organisation/aims-and-principles.html



2 Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class. But inequality and exploitation are also expressed in terms of race, gender, sexuality, health, ability and age, and in these ways one section of the working class oppresses another. This divides us, causing a lack of class unity in struggle that benefits the ruling class. Oppressed groups are strengthened by autonomous action which challenges social and economic power relationships. To achieve our goal we must relinquish power over each other on a personal as well as a political level.


3 We believe that fighting racism and sexism is as important as other aspects of the class struggle. Anarchist-Communism cannot be achieved while sexism and racism still exist. In order to be effective in their struggle against their oppression both within society and within the working class, women, lesbians and gays, and black people may at times need to organise independently. However, this should be as working class people as cross-class movements hide real class differences and achieve little for them. Full emancipation cannot be achieved without the abolition of capitalism.


they may not be worded as well as they could be, but i think it is clear that we consider the liberation of lgbt people to be important.

theres some mentions of lgbt things on our wesite and a lot more about anarchist lgbt people groups, actions and writings around the internet



The Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans/Queer (LGBTQ) caucus is producing another newssheet building on from What's Wrong with Angry? and members intervened at Manchester Pride.


http://afed.org.uk/blog/historical/135-the-anarchist-federation-annual-report-nov-2008-oct-2009.html

http://afed.org.uk/blog/community/76-queer-an-anarchist-deconstruction.html




It sounds like you are implicitly accusing me of "not being a revolutionary". Why not? Just because I consider LGBT rights to be serious and important in their own rights, and not just something attached to a revolutionary socialist program? If that is the case, then well now I trust you anarchists even less when it comes to LGBT politics than I did before.

i've always be completely honest about the fact that i dont consider any kind of leninism to be revolutionary. How you could possibly think it is because you think lgbt rights is important i have no idea.
do you honestly think non of us anarchists are lgbtq?

http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2009/pinkandblack.jpg



LGBT oppression won't automatically go away even after a completely genuine socialist revolution. Make no mistake, I do not rule out the possibility of joining the "counter-revolutionary" side strategically just to defend LGBT rights if your anarchist revolutionary government (or any other revolutionary government) becomes explicitly homophobic and transphobic.

i consider "revolutionary government" to be an oxymoron, and i would consider a revolution incomplete if there was still oppression basied on sex, gender, sexuality, race religion etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

but it is ok to automatically assume that one is not?

if you want to claim that we are not serious then you should be better informed.


Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, but I never accused any anarchist organisation of being anti-LGBT.

Logically if I say I'm not sure that anarchists are pro-LGBT, it doesn't mean I think anarchists are anti-LGBT. Because there are three general positions regarding any issue: positive, negative and neutral, not just two: positive and negative.

My point was that I am not certain about your stance, not that I'm directly accusing you of anything. As I said, I am not an anti-anarchist by any means.



you show me the official trot position on lgbt issues and i'll show you the anarchist one :D
There are hundreds of Trotskyist organisations. Each organisation has its own official position, but there isn't an overall universal Trotskyist position. I'd imagine it's the same for anarchists.

This is even true for Stalinists and Maoists, some are literally homophobic, while others are quite pro-LGBT.

By the way, Left Maoism in some ways is actually closer to anarchism than to orthodox Leninism, since the Shanghai Commune existed outside the structure of the party.



in the mean time here is the AF's aims and principles, which everyone who wants to join is required to understand and agree with

http://afed.org.uk/organisation/aims-and-principles.html


they may not be worded as well as they could be, but i think it is clear that we consider the liberation of lgbt people to be important.

theres some mentions of lgbt things on our wesite and a lot more about anarchist lgbt people groups, actions and writings around the internet

http://afed.org.uk/blog/historical/135-the-anarchist-federation-annual-report-nov-2008-oct-2009.html

http://afed.org.uk/blog/community/76-queer-an-anarchist-deconstruction.html
Ok, thanks for the info.



i've always be completely honest about the fact that i dont consider any kind of leninism to be revolutionary. How you could possibly think it is because you think lgbt rights is important i have no idea.
I just said if, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything.

I'm basically a Leninist, but I don't "worship" Lenin so he made mistakes too.



do you honestly think non of us anarchists are lgbtq?

http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2009/pinkandblack.jpg
I didn't say that.



i consider "revolutionary government" to be an oxymoron, and i would consider a revolution incomplete if there was still oppression basied on sex, gender, sexuality, race religion etc.
Well the ultimate goal of communism is a "stateless society", but do you think we can immediately arrive at one so soon after the revolution? Sounds utopian to me.

I like Mao's idea of continuous revolution: Revolution is not a one-off event, but rather a continuous process, one needs to continuously struggle for a better socialist society.

[Amphictyonis]

If anyone needs to be tortured it's these people

fxv2vLWoO3o


6RNfL6IVWCE