Why?

[CHAIRMAN GONZALO]

I was wondering why is it that Mao and Stalin and so many other revolutionaries were not fond of homosexuality? I think its a fair question. All viewpoints are welcomed. Thanks

[fa2991]

It's the way almost everyone was in those days.

[Obzervi]

It's the way almost everyone was in those days.
So if other people think the same, that makes it okay? Do you realize your statement just justified the white supremacist ideology which was inherent in most white americans for the majoriy of US history?

[Queercommie Girl]

Mao was not explicitly homophobic. You can't find any comments on homosexuality in any of Mao's writings.

There were no explicit homophobic laws in Mao's PRC. But in practice it was often legally punished (sometimes by hard labour) under a related sexual law. Basically, gay sex was put into the same category as rape and sexual harassment, as "lumpenised sexual behaviour".

As for Stalin, the socio-economic reason is that Stalin opposed direct worker's democracy and he also supported the conservative family. It was only through real worker's democracy that homosexuality was legalised for the first time in Russia in 1917 by the Bolsheviks. If one takes away worker's direct democracy, then LGBT rights cannot be guaranteed politically. Also the conservative family (one man, one woman) tends to be mutually exclusive with homosexual relationships. I don't think Stalin was personally very homophobic though. His revisionist homophobic policies were more like an indirect implication of his other policies on worker's democracy, on family and on gender equality.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's the way almost everyone was in those days.

Not completely true. The modern LGBT movement did not begin in the 1960s, it first began in late 19th century and early 20th century Germany and Russia. It was the Scientific Humanitarian Institute attached to the German SPD that gave scientific and legal support to homosexuality in the first time in human history. Also, the Bolsheviks after the 1917 revolution explicitly legalised homosexuality for the first time in Russia. This progressive gain was later reversed by Stalin in 1931.

[fa2991]

So if other people think the same, that makes it okay? Do you realize your statement just justified the white supremacist ideology which was inherent in most white americans for the majoriy of US history?

Don't be stupid. He asked why people were homophobic in the '20s, not why it was okay. :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

To think that everyone in the 1920s were automatically homophobic is plain wrong. Lenin was not homophobic. The Bolsheviks explicitly legalised homosexuality for the first time in Russian history after the October Revolution.

[fa2991]

To think that everyone in the 1920s were automatically homophobic is plain wrong. Lenin was not homophobic. The Bolsheviks explicitly legalised homosexuality for the first time in Russian history after the October Revolution.

I said "almost everyone." I'm not even sure if you can say that most people in the world today aren't homophobic. I'm just saying that communist revolutionaries are often products of their times.

[Queercommie Girl]

I said "almost everyone." I'm not even sure if you can say that most people in the world today aren't homophobic. I'm just saying that communist revolutionaries are often products of their times.

Most people in the entire world? Probably not. In Third World countries homophobia is still widespread.

But perhaps in advanced capitalist countries the majority of people are no longer explicitly homophobic.

It just shows that certainly more radical LGBT politics is required for us to acquire full equality.

[fa2991]

Most people in the entire world? Probably not. In Third World countries homophobia is still widespread.

But perhaps in advanced capitalist countries the majority of people are no longer explicitly homophobic.

It just shows that certainly more radical LGBT politics is required for us to acquire full equality.

We're getting off topic here... the point is that even a radical a century ago could be subject to the norms of his time.

Also, if you think the industrial countries have gotten rid of homophobia, you must never have heard of this little country called America...:lol:

[Vampire Lobster]

So if other people think the same, that makes it okay? Do you realize your statement just justified the white supremacist ideology which was inherent in most white americans for the majoriy of US history?

How was he saying it was 'okay'? The question here was why, after all, and he provided an answer for that question. We all are, in the end, products of our milieu, our surrouding culture. If you lived in the Chinese countryside, where the culture really tends to focus on traditional family model or if you happened to be a 19th century Joe the Settler, the chances are you wouldn't be a shining beacon of tolerance, love and unicorns all over the place either. And seriously, we really shouldn't judge people based on how they were raised to see the world but instead, recognize these distortions (from our own thinking as well, we all got 'em) and put some of the more reactionary views we see in the right context. And then, attempt to reasonably argument the shit out of their regressive and harmful politics. Or ours, I guess.

[Queercommie Girl]

We're getting off topic here... the point is that even a radical a century ago could be subject to the norms of his time.


What is not off-topic is the fact that Lenin legalised homosexuality while Stalin re-criminalised it. I find that some Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists have a revisionist account of history that tries to apologise for Stalin by suggesting that "he was just a product of his times". This would have made some sense had Lenin not explicitly legalised homosexuality in the first place, but Lenin did and Stalin explicitly reversed the prior progressive gain. Therefore even though I don't completely write-off Stalin, Stalin is clearly in the wrong here for de-legalising homosexuality in 1931.



Also, if you think the industrial countries have gotten rid of homophobia, you must never have heard of this little country called America...:lol:

Well, it is true that in some US states homophobia and transphobia are still very widespread. But at least according to the official polls, the majority of the population in Western Europe are no longer explicitly homophobic or transphobic.

[ContrarianLemming]

So if other people think the same, that makes it okay? Do you realize your statement just justified the white supremacist ideology which was inherent in most white americans for the majoriy of US history?

do you realize how stupid you sound when you use a Nazi comparison out of no where (GODWINS LAW) in an insult which isn't even true

he's correct idiot, its the norm, and that IS why.

so don't be a god damn prick about it

[Queercommie Girl]

do you realize how stupid you sound when you use a Nazi comparison out of no where (GODWINS LAW) in an insult which isn't even true

he's correct idiot, its the norm, and that IS why.

so don't be a god damn prick about it

The fact that "it was the norm" is not sufficient justification for Stalin's revisionist actions to re-criminalise homosexuality in 1931, since Lenin already explicitly legalised it in 1917 but Stalin reversed this prior progressive gain.

Yes, so in short, Stalin should be blamed for legal homophobia in the Soviet Union, period.

[ContrarianLemming]

who the hell is trying to justify it???????
we're are saying WY, not that it was ok.

[Queercommie Girl]

who the hell is trying to justify it???????


Maybe not you personally, but it is a fact that many Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists like to apologise for Stalin's mistaken policies, regarding the issue of LGBT rights as well as other things.



we're are saying WY, not that it was ok."It was just the norm" may explain why an ordinary peasant in China was homophobic, but when it comes to Stalin specifically it is not sufficient to use the line "it was just the norm of the day" to explain "why" either, since the original Bolsheviks already legalised homosexuality in 1917 and Stalin later reversed the decision.

In Stalin's case his decision to re-criminalise homosexuality is definitely related to his stance against direct worker's democracy and his conservative views on the family. In those days it was mostly among the relatively alienated layers of the working class that homosexuality was found, not among the privileged ruling bureaucrats around Stalin. The only concrete way to defend the rights of alienated layers of workers would be through direct worker's democracy. Once Stalin takes away direct democracy, LGBT rights can no longer be politically guaranteed. If you look at the majority of the LGBT movements in recent years, most of them have been initiated by grassroots layers, e.g. the march against Prop 8 in the US. This shows that direct grassroots democracy is absolutely essential to guaranteeing LGBT rights, since a significant proportion of the LGBT community exist on the "fringes" of society socio-economically so-to-speak, and direct grassroots democracy is the only way to get them politically engaged. And homosexuality is fundamentally incompatible with the conservative one man/one woman family that Stalin was promoting.

[ContrarianLemming]

In those days it was mostly among the relatively alienated layers of the working class that homosexuality was found, not among the privileged ruling bureaucrats around Stalin.

This is logically wrong, since homosexuality occurs equally among all humans, it is not dependant upon class, Stalins guys were just as likely to be gay.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is logically wrong, since homosexuality occurs equally among all humans, it is not dependant upon class, Stalins guys were just as likely to be gay.

What you said is true in the natural sense, but you forget that humans are not just "natural", we are also "social".

Consider the fact that in early 20th century society queer people are on the whole a very marginalised class of people almost everywhere, how likely is it that such socially marginalised people can rise to the higher ranks of the dictatorial Stalinist bureaucracy?

It's like naturally white people and black people are equally able and intelligent, but why is it that there has never been a black Nobel Prize winner and Obama is the first ever black president in the US? The reason for the discrepancy is socio-economic, not natural.

[Queercommie Girl]

Also, if you think the industrial countries have gotten rid of homophobia, you must never have heard of this little country called America...:lol:


Since you think homophobia/transphobia has not really decreased despite decades of radical campaigning, does this imply that you believe, explicitly or implicitly, that the political campaign to fight for full equality for LGBT people is a futile and utopian one, and it is just a "fact of human nature" that there is always going to be undercurrents of homophobia and transphobia everywhere?

Note that I'm not accusing you, I'm just asking.

[#FF0000]

Not completely true. The modern LGBT movement did not begin in the 1960s, it first began in late 19th century and early 20th century Germany and Russia. It was the Scientific Humanitarian Institute attached to the German SPD that gave scientific and legal support to homosexuality in the first time in human history. Also, the Bolsheviks after the 1917 revolution explicitly legalised homosexuality for the first time in Russia. This progressive gain was later reversed by Stalin in 1931.

Nitpicking but the bolded bit is incorrect. Stalin had nothing to do with the bit of legislation or whatever that made homosexuality illegal. Don't know about his personal beliefs, but he didn't re-criminalize homosexuality.

[Queercommie Girl]

Nitpicking but the bolded bit is incorrect. Stalin had nothing to do with the bit of legislation or whatever that made homosexuality illegal. Don't know about his personal beliefs, but he didn't re-criminalize homosexuality.

But homosexuality was re-criminalised in 1931. Even if Stalin didn't initially propose this law, clearly he agreed to pass whatever homophobic law other people may have proposed.

I do not think Stalin was very homophobic explicitly in the personal sense. But the re-criminalisation of homosexuality was a natural implication of his policies against direct worker's democracy and promotion of the conservative family.

[Reznov]

So if other people think the same, that makes it okay? Do you realize your statement just justified the white supremacist ideology which was inherent in most white americans for the majoriy of US history?

What happened has happened. There is no changing history.

I don't think any of us now would be against LGBT rights.

[Shokaract]

Since you think homophobia/transphobia has not really decreased despite decades of radical campaigning, does this imply that you believe, explicitly or implicitly, that the political campaign to fight for full equality for LGBT people is a futile and utopian one, and it is just a "fact of human nature" that there is always going to be undercurrents of homophobia and transphobia everywhere?

Note that I'm not accusing you, I'm just asking.

He didn't say that homophobia/transphobia have not decreased in "industrial countries." He said that industrial countries haven't eliminated it, giving the United States as a prime example (of backwardness). You never claimed that they did though.

You said that the majority of people in advanced capitalist countries are no longer explicitly homophobic. For some reason, fa2991 expanded that and took that to imply that you believe that "industrial countries have gotten rid of homophobia." ¯\(°_o)/¯

[Apoi_Viitor]

I was wondering why is it that Mao and Stalin and so many other revolutionaries were not fond of homosexuality? I think its a fair question. All viewpoints are welcomed. Thanks

I didn't know Stalin and Mao were revolutionaries....

[mosfeld]

I didn't know Stalin and Mao were revolutionaries.... Clearly you're delusional :)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Clearly you're delusional :)

Maybe, but I think that Mao and Stalin were far more reactionary than revolutionary. Your signature There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people - Howard Zinn, is very applicable to tyrants like Mao and Stalin.

[Amphictyonis]

So if other people think the same, that makes it okay? Do you realize your statement just justified the white supremacist ideology which was inherent in most white americans for the majoriy of US history?

It was a social norm at the time. Somewhat like Bakunins anti antisemitism. The older movements were riddled with racism and homophobia. All across the globe. Misogyny as well.

[Obzervi]

I said "almost everyone." I'm not even sure if you can say that most people in the world today aren't homophobic. I'm just saying that communist revolutionaries are often products of their times.
The same "products of their time" is used by apologetics to excuse white supremacist beliefs of many prominent figures in history, including Charles Darwin and the "Founding Fathers".

[Obzervi]

do you realize how stupid you sound when you use a Nazi comparison out of no where (GODWINS LAW) in an insult which isn't even true

he's correct idiot, its the norm, and that IS why.

so don't be a god damn prick about it
Wow, did I mention the Nazis at all? Actually no, I mentioned white supremacy which is still present today. By relegating the topic of white supremacy exclusively to the nazis you are insinuating that it is not a problem even to this day. I have ZERO tolerance for intolerance, regardless of the fucking century someone was born in.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Wow, did I mention the Nazis at all? Actually no, I mentioned white supremacy which is still present today. By relegating the topic of white supremacy exclusively to the nazis you are insinuating that it is not a problem even to this day. I have ZERO tolerance for intolerance, regardless of the fucking century someone was born in.
That's ridiculous, homophobia was the norm all over the world when these men were alive, homosexuality just wasn't understood is a systematic or scientific way.

This is why these days Communist organizations all take the line that sexuality is innate from birth, and discrimination against it is just as reactionary as say racism or sexism.

The struggle against homophobia, just like the struggle against racism, sexism, and intolerance of all kinds, is important because it denies the ruling class a weapon to divide the working class on the basis of differences.

But all those struggles still must be subordinated to and used for the class struggle.

After all, the Russian and Chinese revolutions were victorious with the divisions of homophobia, and to a lesser extent some sexist baggage.

[Queercommie Girl]

After all, the Russian and Chinese revolutions were victorious with the divisions of homophobia, and to a lesser extent some sexist baggage.

Actually the Bolsheviks were the first people to legalise homosexuality in Russia after the 1917 Revolution.

I love it how for some people this is just a "minor detail" that gets lost along the way.

[Obzervi]

This is why these days Communist organizations all take the line that sexuality is innate from birth, and discrimination against it is just as reactionary as say racism or sexism.



Even if homosexuality were a choice, would that make it wrong? Not to me. I couldn't care less how a person chooses to express his or her sexuality.

[Coyote]

I've heard that, in those days, homosexuality was simply thought to be a part of bourgeois decadence. I don't know if that's completely true, though.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've heard that, in those days, homosexuality was simply thought to be a part of bourgeois decadence. I don't know if that's completely true, though.

That's mostly an idea introduced during the Stalinist era.

[Nuvem]

It's true, those notions were a sign of the times. Though it is highly unfortunate that most people thought that way during the time period, it is undeniable that LGBT equality is something that even most Leftists have not embraced until recently. Many Leftists have, in the past, stated that any form of deviation of sexuality was a result of bourgeois culture. But we've moved past that now. It was a cultural bias resulting from general social attitudes of the times and now, thankfully, the Left can move past this. We have to admit frankly that even many leaders of our past had some unfair prejudices due to the society and times they were raised in; it's all part of assessing the past and learning from people's mistakes and shortcomings.

[Vampire Lobster]

Maybe, but I think that Mao and Stalin were far more reactionary than revolutionary. Your signature There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people - Howard Zinn, is very applicable to tyrants like Mao and Stalin.

Surely, Mao and Stalin and their policies caused notable losses of human life. I'm sure they would've managed to cope with less bloodshed, but first of all, you can't seriously claim these men personally were responsible for all these deaths. China, for example, was very decentralized and Beijing wasn't always even fully aware what was happening in the provinces. But the country was going through fucking revolutionary turmoil and nasty shit tends to happen when people get bitter. These millions of deaths were not organized, they weren't planned. Of course some were, but definitely not to the extent most in the West claim. They happened due to failed organization and pretty damn pissed masses finally getting to do what they wanted to do. That's the power of the masses in practice, and the Chinese working class was the willing butcher there. In many cases, I really can't blame them, considering what China used to be before the Revolution.

In the Soviet case, I got to admit the killings were a bit more centralized. Supposed counter-revolutionaries and Trotskyists and rootless cosmpolitans were not killed by lynching mobs but by Party bureaucrats, but Stalin hardly personally signed every single death sentence. The purges were, too, decentralized within the Party and the other hand often had no idea what the other hand was doing, either, and it often got out of hand. A lot of the more eager purgers - Yezhov, for example - finally ended up being purged themselves, actually, as their actions didn't please the Kremlin elite.

But okay, yeah. More people died than should've died. I'll give you that. But you don't have to be such a liberal prick about it, either. And I'm assuming you're not complaining about the atrocities of the Chinese or Russian civil war here, really, but are referring to things like the Cultural Revolution, violence during the early PRC era and the Stalinist purges. They were pretty fucked up. But you need to grasp the conditions this kind of things come from. Just think about the responsibility these parties actually had: you got to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, industrialize the country and ensure they get a high enough standard of living. A failed policy could very well end up killing millions of people, and especially during the nationalist and the Imperial era the kind of atrocities you saw during the Cultural Revolution were commonplace everywhere. And the capitalist system, right now, is killing innocent people as we speak. Like, now. And now. That's the point of comparison here. And you don't want that, you don't want harmful people doing their shit. And you're ready to shoot some intellectual dickweeds when that's what we're talking about. It wasn't right, by no means, don't get me wrong. It was fucking wrong. But you got to understand the mentality behind what happened, and understand how sometimes, you need to have policies that are, from a moral perspective, fucking awful. And the mentality had everything to do with being a revolutionary, nothing to do with being reactionary.