Left-Wing Problems With Homosexuality

[RED DAVE]

The fact that, in 2010, the left-wing Maoists [in China] have trouble with homosexuality, as reported by a poster here on this board, is not a good sign.
Well, ok, being a radical LGBT activist I admit that homophobia is a problem among the Maoists in China but it's partly to do with Chinese culture. Some mainland Chinese Trotskyists are probably homophobic too.

And it's rather utopian to think that homophobic attitudes no longer exist among the left in the West. Just a few days ago I had an argument with a "borderline homophobe/transphobe" in the Discrimination sub-forum on RevLeft, which eventually ended up with him getting a verbal warning from the mod. Granted, he isn't exactly a Marxist, but he is a leftist (or so he claims himself).I find it absolutely bizarre that over 90 years after the Bolsheviks eliminated all laws against homosexuality in the USSR, some people who consider themselves leftists, and who have presumably read Lenin and know the history of the Russian Revolution, still are reactionary on this issue.

What is their fucking problem? For a so-called Marxist organization to hide behind the "backwardness" of their country is either indication of a shocking provinciality or a shocking opportunism.

RED DAVE

[GreenCommunism]

yes it sucks for them to hide behind it, but china is making headways in this issue, apparently there is some equivalent to oprah in china and she met homosexual couple and was supportive of them, it is like every country on earth, progress is steady as long as there is an environment that supports it.

[RED DAVE]

yes it sucks for them to hide behind it, but china is making headways in this issue, apparently there is some equivalent to oprah in china and she met homosexual couple and was supportive of them, it is like every country on earth, progress is steady as long as there is an environment that supports it.I'm not talking about China as a country but the Chinese Left.

Why the fuck are Chinese (or any other country's) socialists/communists/maoists/trotskyists/what-have-yous of 2010 more backward than the Bolsheviks of 1918 (or Oprah Winfrey)?

RED DAVE

[ContrarianLemming]

It's their culture, not their ideology.

[RED DAVE]

It's their culture, not their ideology.If you're talking about the Chinese left-wing Maoists, the question is, as internationalists, why haven't they risen above their "culture"? The Bolsheviks certainly did, over 90 years ago.

Or, if they're acceding to their culture, they're being opportunistic.

RED DAVE

[ContrarianLemming]

why haven't they risen above their "culture"?

their only human, ignorant humans at that.

[Queercommie Girl]

I find it absolutely bizarre that over 90 years after the Bolsheviks eliminated all laws against homosexuality in the USSR, some people who consider themselves leftists, and who have presumably read Lenin and know the history of the Russian Revolution, still are reactionary on this issue.

What is their fucking problem? For a so-called Marxist organization to hide behind the "backwardness" of their country is either indication of a shocking provinciality or a shocking opportunism.

RED DAVE

Well maybe you should do something about the existence of homophobia and transphobia among the Western left as well, rather than just picking on China all the time?

I think the Chinese Trotskyists based in Hong Kong are definitely pro-LGBT, but I don't have conclusive information for any socialist organisations based in mainland China regarding their stances on the LGBT issue.

It's not helped by the fact that one of the most vocal LGBT activists in contemporary China, Ms Li Yinhe, is actually a right-winger economically speaking. She once directly ridiculed the poor. As far as I know in mainland China now there is actually more support of LGBT people in mainstream society than among the socialist left, which is why some consider LGBT issues to be a "bourgeois deviation".

[RED DAVE]

their [the Chinese left-wing maoists] only human, ignorant humans at that.We're all human and ignorant. The question is why they've learned nothing from 100 years of Marxists history.

RED DAVE

[Soviet dude]

Why haven't you?

[RED DAVE]

Why haven't you?Has the river risen too high for you to hide under your bridge? Piss off before we send the billy goats after you.

RED DAVE

[Audeamus]

It's their culture, not their ideology.

I would hesitate to call it their culture with regards to China. First because you're dealing with a massive and diverse group of people spread out over a large area with different customs etc. Second, because homosexual relationships were common in various regions and classes in China before the Qing dynasty. Indeed when the Qing dynasty instituted the first law against homosexuality, it was the lightest punishment that existed within the Qing legal system. General homophobia only really came into the picture as a result of European colonialism from my understanding.

[Weezer]

It's their culture, not their ideology.

I thought Maoism support the theory of Cultural Revolution.

Culture doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Small Geezer]

Chinese homosexuality is excellent. :thumbup1:

[khad]

I find it absolutely bizarre that over 90 years after the Bolsheviks eliminated all laws against homosexuality in the USSR, some people who consider themselves leftists, and who have presumably read Lenin and know the history of the Russian Revolution, still are reactionary on this issue.
Come, now, we all know that isn't true. It's funny how leftists brainwash themselves with this liberalized presentist mythology. Pederastry trials were used throughout the 1920s to discredit and destroy the remnants of the Orthodox Church, and in various soviet republics outside of Russia, homosexuality was quickly re-criminalized during Lenin's administration.

There's a book on it:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_36/ai_104635113/

[RED DAVE]

Come, now, we all know that isn't true. It's funny how leftists brainwash themselves with this liberalized presentist mythology. Pederastry trials were used throughout the 1920s to discredit and destroy the remnants of the Orthodox Church, and in various soviet republics outside of Russia, homosexuality was quickly re-criminalized during Lenin's administration.(1) Maybe so for the above, but I'd like some documentation.

(2) Even if the above is true, then the Chinese Left-Maoists, allegedly the most advanced political force in China, are less advanced on the issue of homosexuality than Oprah Winfrey or the average American liberal.

RED DAVE

[Antifa94]

you mean under STALIN, khad. he criminalized in 1934.

Funny, I had been considering buying that book for a long time, it looks really interesting.
That and "The Dictatorship of Sex".

[727Goon]

okay.

[khad]

you mean under STALIN, khad. he criminalized in 1934.

Funny, I had been considering buying that book for a long time, it looks really interesting.
That and "The Dictatorship of Sex".
Did you even bother to even read the review of the book? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

you mean under STALIN, khad. he criminalized in 1934.

Funny, I had been considering buying that book for a long time, it looks really interesting.
That and "The Dictatorship of Sex".
Sure, homosexuality wasn't understood in a systematic and scientific way back then, it wasn't thought of as an innate sexuality. It is now, and Communist movements take that line today.

But hiding behind homophobia that existed in a Communist movement over 90 years ago, in order to justify being against everything else the revolution brought (full literacy, proper medical treatments and campaigns to eliminate common illness, proper agricultural development etc) is absolutely reactionary.

There are lots of pseudo-Left people in the West these days who in there heart of hearts are anti-Communists, and it wouldn't matter how much good Lenin or the Bolshevik did to improve the lot of the Russian masses, they would still come up with inane 'undemocratic!', 'they were anti-gay!' type arguments to justify why they are against Communism.

Either you are for the proletariat, or you are for the bourgeois. Self-criticism and correcting errors is part of any movement based on a theory which is scientific.

The Western Left seem to think social issues outweigh the class struggle.

[Antifa94]

Jayshin- Social issues are decisive in dictating what constitutes the proletariat, and all forms of discrimination can clearly be viewed as an attempt at weakening and dividing the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism uses structural violence in the form of bias and discrimination in order to damage workers and minorities.

@khad- yes, I obviously read the article... The fact remains that stalin re-criminalized homosexuality, regardless of the book's enlightening of the sexual debate within 20's Russia. The author is simply giving a context to the legal emancipation and subsequent persecution of gays in revolutionary russia; the first line of the review remains true. The Bolshevik legal code of 1922 obviously represented the most avant-garde or radically modern group that would decriminalize homosexuality, the re-criminalization was a part of stalin's repressive drivel.

[#FF0000]

you mean under STALIN, khad. he criminalized in 1934.

Stalin had nothing to do with it actually.

[Antifa94]

Article 121, Criminal Code 1934.
What the fuck are you saying? That Stalin sat helplessly by whilst others persecuted gays? Come on, he could have easily prevented such a law from being implemented.

Sorry, was your post a reference to the Maxim Gorky petition?

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Jayshin- Social issues are decisive in dictating what constitutes the proletariat, and all forms of discrimination can clearly be viewed as an attempt at weakening and dividing the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism uses structural violence in the form of bias and discrimination in order to damage workers and minorities.

Of course, but social struggles, struggles against homophobia, racism, sexism, all intolerance, must ultimately be subordinated to the the discipline of the class struggle.

Making completely out-of-context attacks on historical socialists is just as damaging as homophobia itself, because it gives the bourgeois a weapon 'on the left' to hide behind. 'Stalin was a homophobe' or whatever, to attract leftie liberals to opposing communism.

The correct line, would be to accept homophobia existed, and that sexuality wasn't as systematically understood back then. Criticizing historical communists that are dead and buried for political errors that have long since been corrected in the Communist movement, is reactionary.

You might have a point if there was a Communist organization today that was openly homophobic.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Article 121, Criminal Code 1934.
What the fuck are you saying? That Stalin sat helplessly by whilst others persecuted gays? Come on, he could have easily prevented such a law from being implemented.

Sorry, was your post a reference to the Maxim Gorky petition?
Stalin was Gen Sec of the Communist Party, I don't see how that related to the soviet congress.

[Antifa94]

A- I detest stalin so I couldn't give a shit if he turned liberals away from communism, it's his goddamn fault for being a monstrosity. Yes, I know that we need to show that he wasn't the paragon of communist ideologies and doesn't represent the humane, utopian aspirations of leftists.

B- He very well had sway over important social/economic/political legislation passed. He was a dictator.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

A- I detest stalin so I couldn't give a shit if he turned liberals away from communism, it's his goddamn fault for being a monstrosity. Yes, I know that we need to show that he wasn't the paragon of communist ideologies and doesn't represent the humane, utopian aspirations of leftists.
Excuse me? He acheived more toward building the reality of socialism in the material world than any half-baked liberal sitting in his ivory tower reciting bourgeois CIA lines.


B- He very well had sway over important social/economic/political legislation passed. He was a dictator.
What a load of tosh, Stalin (and Lenin too) as a dictator is the bourgeois line. 'Dictatorship' is absolute power, Stalin did not have personal power of that sort. The USSR was the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the Russian working masses who threw down the dictatorship of the bourgeois. The USSR government was collegiate, not personal, and again Stalin held the chair for the executive of the Communist party.

[Queercommie Girl]

Come, now, we all know that isn't true. It's funny how leftists brainwash themselves with this liberalized presentist mythology. Pederastry trials were used throughout the 1920s to discredit and destroy the remnants of the Orthodox Church, and in various soviet republics outside of Russia, homosexuality was quickly re-criminalized during Lenin's administration.

There's a book on it:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_36/ai_104635113/

To say that Lenin explicitly legalised homosexuality in Russia in 1917 is certainly not a "mythology". Technically it is true that it was only legalised in Russia itself and not in the other non-Russian Soviet republics, but that's because Leninism believes in the national and cultural rights of minority peoples. (Similar to why I don't write-off the Maoists in mainland China today simply because they are not pro-LGBT)

Also, pederastry is not homosexuality. One can certainly be completely anti-pederastry but still pro-homosexuality. And homosexuality wasn't re-criminalised in the USSR until after Lenin died.

To call the support of homosexuality "liberal" sounds like you don't think homosexuality is intrinsically "socialist"?

[Queercommie Girl]

Stalin had nothing to do with it actually.

It is probably true that Stalin wasn't the bureaucrat who introduced the homophobic law itself. It might be true that personally Stalin was not so homophobic. But as the top leader of the USSR at the time, he still allowed the homophobic law to pass nonetheless. He was therefore at least indirectly responsible for its re-criminalisation if not directly so.

[Manic Impressive]

I thought the OP was about current homophobia in the left in China, not who did what in soviet Russia. Speaking of Russia I find myself increasingly worried about the ideologies of comrades from there and eastern Europe. To isolate this problem to China is wrong it's still a global problem. In western Europe I think homophobes are in the minority but from what I've heard about groups in eastern Europe and some of the people I've spoken to from there it seems there is a huge problem with homophobia and racism.

Instead of constantly re-hashing the past and arguing about who passed what law in what year why not discuss what the problems are now, instead of wishing you were back in 1917

[Devrim]

If you're talking about the Chinese left-wing Maoists, the question is, as internationalists, why haven't they risen above their "culture"? The Bolsheviks certainly did, over 90 years ago.

Or, if they're acceding to their culture, they're being opportunistic.


Dave, you seem very confused about the nature of Maoism. You seem to understand that it is not a socialist movement, but don't seem to understand that it is a bourgeois movement. They are not internationalists, but nationalists, and the fact that they reflect bourgeois ideas in their society is no surprise.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

You might have a point if there was a Communist organization today that was openly homophobic.We are dealing with the Chinese Left-maoists who, according to a poster here who is in contact with them, are homophobic and yet they have pretensions to leading the Chinese working class.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

I thought the OP was about current homophobia in the left in China, not who did what in soviet Russia. Speaking of Russia I find myself increasingly worried about the ideologies of comrades from there and eastern Europe. To isolate this problem to China is wrong it's still a global problem. In western Europe I think homophobes are in the minority but from what I've heard about groups in eastern Europe and some of the people I've spoken to from there it seems there is a huge problem with homophobia and racism.

Instead of constantly re-hashing the past and arguing about who passed what law in what year why not discuss what the problems are now, instead of wishing you were back in 1917


Actually homophobia in China is less compared with in Eastern Europe. Even the ruling CCP has an official "neutral" position on homosexuality: The Three no's: "No support, no opposition, no promotion".

[Queercommie Girl]

We are dealing with the Chinese Left-maoists who, according to a poster here who is in contact with them, are homophobic and yet they have pretensions to leading the Chinese working class.

RED DAVE

Technically the MCPC is not homophobic. It simply has absolutely no official stance and nothing on this topic at all, one way or another.

I don't think it is objective to say that the MCPC is not fit to lead the working class simply because they are not pro-LGBT.

There are Trotskyists who are homophobic too, does this mean I should write-off the entire Trotskyist movement?

[Queercommie Girl]

Dave, you seem very confused about the nature of Maoism. You seem to understand that it is not a socialist movement, but don't seem to understand that it is a bourgeois movement. They are not internationalists, but nationalists, and the fact that they reflect bourgeois ideas in their society is no surprise.

Devrim

It is unfair to call Maoism, especially Left Maoism, a "bourgeois movement".

I don't think you really know what you are talking about. Certain elements in Left Maoism are actually objectively even more to the left than Orthodox Leninism is.

[Devrim]

It is unfair to call Maoism, especially Left Maoism, a "bourgeois movement".

Maoism is a movement that since its inception has made alliances with bourgeois nationalists, taken sides in imperialist wars, and is based not on the working class, but on peasant armies. Yes, I think it is pretty fair to call all of Maoism bourgeois.


I don't think you really know what you are talking about. Certain elements in Left Maoism are actually objectively even more to the left than Orthodox Leninism is.

I would say that what passes itself off as Leninism today is pretty bourgeois too.

This is all off topic from the thread though. My point was that 'Red Dave' recognises that Maoism isn't a movement for socialism, but sees it as a movement for 'state capitalism'.

If this is so, to me it raises a contradiction. If it is a movement for capitalism how can they be 'proletarian internationalists'?

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

Of course, but social struggles, struggles against homophobia, racism, sexism, all intolerance, must ultimately be subordinated to the the discipline of the class struggle.


That is not the word I would use at all. When one tries to combine working class and oppressed minority (due to sex, race, sexuality, gender identity etc) movements, one is really pursuing a line that would be beneficial for both movements intrinsically, not to systematically sub-ordinate everything under a class movement. That line is too class-reductionist. In fact, the majority of LGBT people are working class objectively anyway so an alliance of the two movements that genuinely benefits both shouldn't in principle be difficult at all.

Also, most people in this thread are not calling the early Bolsheviks under Lenin homophobes at all, in fact quite the opposite, people are saying that they had relatively speaking the most advanced and progressive position on LGBT matters at the time. No doubt undercurrents of homophobia still existed though, just like undercurrents of racism and sexism. Both the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties were somewhat racist towards ethnic minorities in their respective countries.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maoism is a movement that since its inception has made alliances with bourgeois nationalists, taken sides in imperialist wars, and is based not on the working class, but on peasant armies. Yes, I think it is pretty fair to call all of Maoism bourgeois.


I reject the ultra-leftist position that says working class political forces cannot ally with non-working class political forces at all. That's too dogmatic.

As long as working class leadership is guaranteed, sometimes alliances can be made with both the peasantry and the progressive bourgeois to a limited extent.

Lenin himself explicitly called for a political alliance of the working class and the peasantry. This is even on the universal flag for communism: Hammer and Sickle, not just Hammer. Maoism is not peasantry based since Maoists officially consider the working class to be the leading class while the peasantry is only the "semi-leading class".

[Queercommie Girl]

I find it absolutely bizarre that over 90 years after the Bolsheviks eliminated all laws against homosexuality in the USSR, some people who consider themselves leftists, and who have presumably read Lenin and know the history of the Russian Revolution, still are reactionary on this issue.

What is their fucking problem? For a so-called Marxist organization to hide behind the "backwardness" of their country is either indication of a shocking provinciality or a shocking opportunism.

RED DAVE

To be frank, I think you are just using LGBT politics as an excuse to attack the Chinese left here, rather than genuinely and sincerely care about LGBT liberation in itself like I do.

Cultural matters are sensitive and difficult to handle, why do you think Lenin didn't immediately legalise homosexuality in the non-Russian Soviet republics after the October Revolution?

You are in the West, not in China. So rather then promoting LGBT issues among the left in the West and combat homophobia and transphobia here, (I've certainly never seen you post a single pro-LGBT thread/post here on RevLeft or criticised the borderline homophobia/transphobia that sometimes exist here) you actually attack the left in a country that is thousands of miles away from you. Unless you are of the delusional opinion that homophobia and transphobia no longer exist among the Western left, I don't think I can take your allegedly pro-LGBT stance very seriously at all.

[RED DAVE]

As long as working class leadership is guaranteed, sometimes alliances can be made with both the peasantry and the progressive bourgeois to a limited extent.Everhyone knows that the working class often makes alliances with the peasantry.

However, it is absolute class collaboration and a sell-out to ally with the so-called "progressive bourgeois." Yes, I know the Bolsheviks worked with Sun Ya-Sen and the Chinese bourgeoisie. The result of this was a disaster. Interesting that the Bolsheiks did not work with the progressive bourgeoisie of Russia itself.

Getting back to homosexuality, there is no excuse in 2010 for a so-called Marxist group to be homophobic. If the Chinese Trots are homophobic, it just goes to show how backward they are.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Everhyone knows that the working class often makes alliances with the peasantry.

However, it is absolute class collaboration and a sell-out to ally with the so-called "progressive bourgeois." Yes, I know the Bolsheviks worked with Sun Ya-Sen and the Chinese bourgeoisie. The result of this was a disaster. Interesting that the Bolsheiks did not work with the progressive bourgeoisie of Russia itself.


Actually the disaster was not that they allied with the progressive bourgeois, but that they completely lost control and even independence in this "alliance".



Getting back to homosexuality, there is no excuse in 2010 for a so-called Marxist group to be homophobic. If the Chinese Trots are homophobic, it just goes to show how backward they are.
Why cut the grass two thousand miles away when the grass in front of your house remains uncut? Or are you seriously delusional to the extent of imagining that homophobia/transphobia no longer exist among Western leftists?

[Adi Shankara]

Also, pederastry is not homosexuality

just for the record, and in context, the Russian word for "homosexual" is "pedik", which carries the same connotation of "pederast". I'm not taking any position, just stating what I know about the Russian language.

[Queercommie Girl]

just for the record, and in context, the Russian word for "homosexual" is "pedik", which carries the same connotation of "pederast". I'm not taking any position, just stating what I know about the Russian language.

Just because there is a linguistic link doesn't mean that objectively homosexuality is in general equivalent to pedophilia. Only homophobic people would make such a suggestion.

Also, in Russian perhaps they are linguistically linked, but in most other languages they are not.

In the context of homosexuality in the early USSR, it doesn't mean homosexuality was officially still criminalised during the Lenin period either, certainly not in Russia itself at least.

[RED DAVE]

Why cut the grass two thousand miles away when the grass in front of your house remains uncut? Or are you seriously delusional to the extent of imagining that homophobia/transphobia no longer exist among Western leftists?Well, I started the thread to discuss the general problem. And we know, from you, about homophobia/transphobia with regard to the Chinese Left-Maoists.

I am not aware of homophobia, currently, among left groups in the US. I'm sure there are individuals who have problems this way. Enlighten us.

RED DAVE

[khad]

Just because there is a linguistic link doesn't mean that objectively homosexuality is in general equivalent to pedophilia. Only homophobic people would make such a suggestion.
FYI, the anti-pederastry(pedik) trials of the 1920s DID. That's just a historical fact. Your liberalism is imputing some kind of sexual revolutionary politics into the early USSR that didn't exist.

Recognize the movements of the past for all their good and bad--crafting convenient mythologies fit for your modern moral sensibilities does no one any good. The Russian Revolution, due to a variety of material circumstances, was simply not capable of understanding the phenomenon of homosexuality.

And another thing, if you keep accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a homophobe, pretty soon no one will take you seriously.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its a complicated issue. The notion of homosexuality as a specific sexual orientation evolved in the late 19th century.In many cultures religion, Christianity or Buddhism provided an outlet and community for homosexual men at least.Homophobia in Soviet Russia could have been due to the strains of an industrializing society,justified resentment of the church and association of homosexuals with cosmopolitan capitalism.


The review Khad posted is quite interesting. My understanding is that the legalization of homosexuality by the Bolsheviks was more in the line of a "gesture" or a statement. For whatever reasons Russia was and is an intensely homophobic society. Under the horrible conditions Russia faced there were limits to what could be done but legalizing homosexuality was an important progressive gesture.

The "family values" policies under Stalinism were different. While opportunistically building on widely held attitudes and beliefs they also worked to reinforce the rule of the nomenklatura elite.

[RED DAVE]

Could we, for once, engage in a political discussion of attitudes towards homosexuality, without getting involved in a discussion of pedophilia?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Under the horrible conditions Russia faced there were limits to what could be done but legalizing homosexuality was an important progressive gesture.

The "family values" policies under Stalinism were different. While opportunistically building on widely held attitudes and beliefs they also worked to reinforce the rule of the nomenklatura elite.This is the point and the context in which the Chinese Left-Maoist's homophobia is so disturbing.

RED DAVE

[khad]

You say this and in the same post, you accuse him/her of being a liberal for disagreeing with you.


Priceless.
Liberalism is the propensity to view politics through idealist and not materialist bases. It's something quite a number of people are prone to do when they don't have the slightest clue about historical context. Like many of you, they start mapping their contemporary values onto people and movements of the past.

Thus history just becomes a puppet show where past actors are simply ventriloquized to serve the need of reaffirming one's own ideology.

The bottom line is that the Bolsheviks were nether the liberators nor the horrendous oppressors of homosexuals. Nor were they the vanguard of a revolution in sexual relations. Yes, and in the Russian language, male homosexuality continues to be equated with pederastry to the present day.

To read the Russian Revolution as an exercise in contemporary identity politics is you know what--liberalism.

We need to be objective and stop making these past movements into exercises in mythology.

[Communist]

you can't expect much more from Khad, he's quite an unpleasant person.
Ha! and uses reputation as a weapon.
That doesn't contribute anything of value to this thread does it? No.
This is an important discussion. Your post is trashed, please just stay on topic and all will be fine.

.

[khad]

What are values? Talking about "values" is itself idealist.
Then you admit to being an idealist, then? Really, don't give me that shit.


The historical fact is that there was a regression in the progressive reforms made during the Russian revolution.See there you go again, talking about regression and progression, without accounting for any material fact.

The Bolsheviks certainly did not view politics in such terms. Even as he technically lifted the restrictions on homosexual relations, Lenin's administration still actively pursued prosecutions based on pederastry/homosexuality (because in the Russian language they are the same thing) in order to target institutions like the Orthodox Church. In Central Asia, such laws were targeted at prostitution and human trafficking.

The Bolsheviks opportunistically used the law where it would serve the interests of class struggle. This was in response to immediate problems they faced (ie overturning the legal code, discrediting the church) but had numerous negative consequences as well. It is a fact that the roll-back of "gay rights" began under Lenin.


Perhaps Marx should have said 'it was the values of those days that caused it'? It is Soviet apologists like yourself who prevent students of history from gaining a proper perspective on the history of socialism.The proper perspective? It is a fact that "pedik" trials happened under Lenin's administration and prosecutions of homosexuals persisted despite the professed legal code. Perhaps you're the one trying to set Lenin up as your leftist Santa Claus so that you can then whine about the evil Stalinist grinch.

[Adi Shankara]

What are values? Talking about "values" is itself idealist.

But it's not historical materialist, which Khad was arguing about in the first place.


The historical fact is that there was a regression in the progressive reforms made during the Russian revolution. This simply cannot be wished away by accusing others of "presentism". Not only does this reek of post-modernism, but by this standard, Marx would not be allowed to recognize the feudal regimes that caused the ruin of the serfs which brought about the bourgeois revolution. It is by understanding history and criticising it where necessary (even by "presentist values") that Marx was able to gain a proper understanding of history. Perhaps Marx should have said 'it was the values of those days that caused it'? It is Soviet apologists like yourself who prevent students of history from gaining a proper perspective on the history of socialism.

Why is it that anyone who speaks out against liberalist ideals is almost always accused of being a "Soviet Apologist"? I don't see anyone saying that what the soviets did were right or wrong--but what was said is that it had to be understood in a historical context.

Fact of the matter is, anti-pedik laws were used for many purposes.

[Adi Shankara]

You know how to use ad hominems, but cannot address why the legislation against homosexuals is part of socialism. To narrowly interpret class struggle as the only real struggle is economism.

No one said the legislation against homosexuals was "part of socialism". what was said that, in a historical context, it was part of THAT socialism. It's a historical context, things were different back then, and anti-pederast/homosexual laws were used to achieve multiple means.


On the other hand, revisionists are nationalists in many cases.

Baseless claim, ad hominem.


Hence the switch to economism when it suits them sometimes and the reversion to nationalism when it suits them other times. This is evident from your style of argument.

more ad hominem. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that economic and social issues go hand-in-hand; that's just basic Marxism 101.

[RED DAVE]

Anybody want to talk about homophobia among left-wing Maoists in China in 2010?

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Anybody want to talk about homophobia among left-wing Maoists in China in 2010?

Ah, Dave's latest attack on Maoism... :rolleyes:

What exactly are we talking about here?

We have no sources. We have no information. We have no proof of anything about anyone.

Let's look at what we have in front of us:

A faceless internet person calling themselves 'Iseul' (no offence meant whatsoever) has made some allegations about a group calling itself the Maoist Communist Party of China.

What is the MCPC? Well, we don't really know. There don't seem to be any reports of it on the internet except for the ones posted on this forum and reposted elsewhere by Iseul.

I don't mean any disrespect to Iseul, whose posts I generally enjoy reading and agree with. But Iseul is not an IRL academic or researcher. His reports of alleged homophobia amongst Maoists in China should be noted and taken into account, but they are not conclusive statements. He has no credentials and it is *possible* that neither Iseul nor the MCPC exist at all. That's the beauty of the internet and the anonymity that comes with it.

Now I think that without a doubt there are revolutionaries in China organising underground to oppose the CCP regime and hopefully one day in the not so distant future lead a revolt against it. I think without a doubt the majority of these rebels will be heavily influenced by Mao and Maoism.

It's also probable that there are many of these rebels who hold opinions that I would disagree with, including ones about homosexuality. But you know what? I don't actually have any serious evidence either way.

This thread is ridiculous. Certain people should know better.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ah, Dave's latest attack on Maoism... :rolleyes:

What exactly are we talking about here?

We have no sources. We have no information. We have no proof of anything about anyone.

Let's look at what we have in front of us:

A faceless internet person calling themselves 'Iseul' (no offence meant whatsoever) has made some allegations about a group calling itself the Maoist Communist Party of China.

What is the MCPC? Well, we don't really know. There don't seem to be any reports of it on the internet except for the ones posted on this forum and reposted elsewhere by Iseul.

. He has no credentials and it is *possible* that neither Iseul nor the MCPC exist at all. That's the beauty of the internet and the anonymity that comes with it.

This thread is ridiculous. Certain people should know better.

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/08/11/10-point-declaration-of-the-maoist-communist-party-of-china/

I can assure you that both the poster Iseul and the MCPC exist. The MCPC reflect deeply held Chinese attitudes on sexuality. Of course this in itself would not negate giving them some critical support in certain situations.I feel the Maoist approach is wrong, it does not adequately take into account why the PRC became capitalist and is in severe danger of merely "repeating the same old shit". Workers in China need to critically exam all socialist groups and tendencies.

There isn't an lgbt litmus test for supporting workers struggles. Its a complicated situation.

[Saorsa]

I'm not sure what the link to Kasama is supposed to prove. Kasama say clearly that the article was reposted from Iseul.

[Queercommie Girl]

FYI, the anti-pederastry(pedik) trials of the 1920s DID. That's just a historical fact. Your liberalism is imputing some kind of sexual revolutionary politics into the early USSR that didn't exist.

Recognize the movements of the past for all their good and bad--crafting convenient mythologies fit for your modern moral sensibilities does no one any good.


Trotskyist analysis of the same period generally differs from your revisionist account. Your egoism is preventing you from objectively evaluating positions on this matter given by other tendencies.

In linguistics, just because two words share the same linguistic roots doesn't necessarily imply that they were literally identical in the socio-economic context. You would be implicitly accusing Lenin of being an opportunistic hypocrite if he explicitly legalised homosexuality on the one hand but actually directly persecuted homosexuals on the other. In Lenin's day many Soviet scientists also considered homosexuality to be a mental illness. To have some anti-pedophilia trials and have some scientists having certain homophobic views isn't the same as having an official legal position that is actually homophobic.

I don't worship Lenin and he isn't perfect by any means. But it doesn't change the fact that relatively speaking, in his time (early 20th century) he and the early Bolsheviks still had one of the most progressive views on LGBT issues in general.

And I don't really see the point of your position, regardless of how factually correct it is. Just like I don't see any positive purpose to Dave's OP. Are you suggesting for instance that since LGBT liberation was not a part of the original political programme of the Bolsheviks in early Russia, but rather something that began with "liberals" and radical students in the West decades later, then really LGBT issues aren't so important in the socialist context? What is the actual "moral" of your story here?



And another thing, if you keep accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a homophobe, pretty soon no one will take you seriously.
Maybe you have a problem with understanding the English language to some extent being a non-native speaker, but I never accused anyone of homophobia here, let alone "everyone". Why don't you show me where I've accused people of being homophobic or transphobic here?

And objectively I think the majority of the people here are supportive of LGBT rights, so trying to suggest that people "don't take me seriously" doesn't work at all.

Shankara received verbal warnings before from moderators here for his borderline transphobia against me. So actually in his particular case accusing him of being homophobic/transphobic isn't objectively so wrong, considering his previous history in this matter. Of course, in this thread I'm not actually accusing him of anything anyway. I was just making the objective point that to equate homosexuality with pedophilia is homophobic, not that Shankara was actually equating them.

By the way, would you also equally suggest that people shouldn't accuse others for being "racists" and "sexists" too?

Another thing, while I certainly don't just assume that other people are homophobic or transphobic without some kind of concrete evidence, (which means your accusation of me here saying I'm accusing people for being homophobes without evidence is completely groundless) I don't do the opposite either. I don't just assume people like you or Shankara or anyone else *must be* pro-LGBT without some kind of positive evidence either. On this issue I don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but rather "neutral until proven either innocent or guilty". Regarding LGBT politics as with other issues, there are always 3 general positions, and not just 2: "pro, anti and neutral", not just "pro and anti".

[Queercommie Girl]

How are they homophobic? Do they oppose homosexuality as part of their program?

AFAIK officially the MCPC has absolutely no position or any material on this topic at all, one way or another. It's not even mentioned. As far as they are concerned, LGBT people simply do not exist.

[Queercommie Girl]

Baseless claim, ad hominem.


This is off-topic, but the link between revisionism and nationalism is pretty clear, in the eyes of Eastern European workers seeing Soviet tanks entering their country, or in the eyes of Vietnamese peasants seeing the PLA crossing the border into their land.

[RED DAVE]

Ah, Dave's latest attack on Maoism... :rolleyes:RED DAVE's and other's discussion of the Left and homophobia, including the Chinese Left Maoists.


What exactly are we talking about here?Always a good question.


We have no sources. We have no information. We have no proof of anything about anyone.We have a source; we have information; this is not a course in euclidean geometry or a court of law, so we don't need "proof."


Let's look at what we have in front of us:Fire away, Perry Mason.


A faceless internet person calling themselves 'Iseul' (no offence meant whatsoever) has made some allegations about a group calling itself the Maoist Communist Party of China.A comrade who has been posting here for a long time, whose politics differ from yours, has given some information about the Chinese left-wing Maoists.


What is the MCPC? Well, we don't really know. There don't seem to be any reports of it on the internet except for the ones posted on this forum and reposted elsewhere by Iseul.Are you saying they don't exist? Has Iseul made them up?


I don't mean any disrespect to Iseul, whose posts I generally enjoy reading and agree with.But you have disrespected him, which is par for the course for you. Disrespecting your poltical opponents is one of the things you do whenever you're cornered politically. When you can't deal with the message, you insult the messenger.


But Iseul is not an IRL academic or researcher.Are those your criteria for truth? That a comrade should be an academic or researcher? (What is the IRL?)

Well, then, I guess we should trust university professors over left-wing activists. Where do you teach? Are you a full professor, an adjunct, an assistant. Do you have a PhD? If not, drop out of this forum, and don't come back until you're Prof. A. :cool:


His reports of alleged homophobia amongst Maoists in China should be noted and taken into account, but they are not conclusive statements.No one said they were. No one has come up with any evidence to the contrary, including you.


He has no credentialsHe's a comrade here. That surely counts for something, or do we only trust academics or researchers? I'm writing a piece now about a black American socialist, a former slave who wrote three books about socialism. Screw him because he wasn't an academic or a researcher. (Nether am I for that matter. :D)


and it is *possible* that neither Iseul nor the MCPC exist at all. That's the beauty of the internet and the anonymity that comes with it.It's also *possible* that you're a seven foot tall space alien.


Now I think that without a doubt there are revolutionaries in China organising underground to oppose the CCP regimeThat's big of you A, because if you didn't "think without a doubt" that they existed, I guess they wouldn't exist.


and hopefully one day in the not so distant future lead a revolt against it. I think without a doubt the majority of these rebels will be heavily influenced by Mao and Maoism.In which case ... but let's not get into the class collaborationism of Maoism. Perhaps these comrades will have had their immune systems strengthened against that virus.


It's also probable that there are many of these rebels who hold opinions that I would disagree with, including ones about homosexuality.That's a hell of a disagreement after 100 years or so of left-wing crusading against homophobia and for the rights of LGBT people, which has intensified over the past forty years or so.


But you know what?What?


I don't actually have any serious evidence either way.We have some pretty good information from a pretty reliable source: Iseul.


This thread is ridiculous. Certain people should know better. :rolleyes:

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I started the thread to discuss the general problem. And we know, from you, about homophobia/transphobia with regard to the Chinese Left-Maoists.

I am not aware of homophobia, currently, among left groups in the US. I'm sure there are individuals who have problems this way. Enlighten us.

RED DAVE

Organisational homophobia/transphobia is common among some revisionist and Stalinist groups. Esperanza on our very own forum RevLeft used to be a Hoxhaist, but quit her Hoxhaist group and became an anarchist instead because one Hoxhaist member literally told her to "go to hell" just because she was trans. Even the Western Maoist group RCP was vehemently homophobic until very recently, treating all LGBT people as degenerate scum. But then I guess from your strictly Trotskyist perspective you don't consider these to be genuinely socialist. On the other hand, if you do consider non-Trotskyist Marxist groups to be socialist in some ways but are not aware of their explicit homophobia in some cases, then well you are just being ignorant.

Currently virtually no Western Trotskyist organisation is explicitly homophobic in the organisational sense. In the past, they did exist, for instance Ted Grant, one of the key theorists in what was then known as the Militant Tendency (now the CWI), once remarked that gay politics is a kind of "petit-bourgeois nonsense". The Grantists have since completely broken away from the now re-named CWI about 2 decades ago and the CWI today is at least officially pro-LGBT.

It is objectively true that generally speaking Trotskyist organisations have a much better record on LGBT issues than Stalinist, Maoist and revisionist organisations. In fact, I think it makes more sense to have a division in terms of the existence of homophobic attitudes along "Trotskyist" and "non-Trotskyist" lines in Marxist politics, rather than along any kind of "cultural" lines. There are more homophobic Western Maoists than Chinese Trotskyists. Generally there is a positive correlation between "attitudes towards LGBT issues" and "proletarian democracy". The more a particular tendency supports direct worker's democracy, the more pro-LGBT it tends to be.

But even among Trotskyists in the West today, undercurrents of homophobia and transphobia still exist among some individuals, as do undercurrents of racism and sexism. (One example of implicit racism: your thread here using LGBT politics as an excuse to attack the Chinese left)

[RED DAVE]

Organisational homophobia/transphobia is common among some revisionist and Stalinist groups. Esperanza on our very own forum RevLeft used to be a Hoxhaist, but quit her Hoxhaist group and became an anarchist instead because one Hoxhaist member literally told her to "go to hell" just because she was trans. Even the Western Maoist group RCP was vehemently homophobic until very recently, treating all LGBT people as degenerate scum. But then I guess from your strictly Trotskyist perspective you don't consider these to be genuinely socialist. On the other hand, if you do consider non-Trotskyist Marxist groups to be socialist in some ways but are not aware of their explicit homophobia in some cases, then well you are just being ignorant.I guess I'm just ignorant then. :D

Seriously, though, I try to keep current with political issues of left-wing groups of all flavors in the US. I know that various groups, especially Maoist and Stalinist, have had problems with homophobia in the past. But organizationally, everything seems to have sorted itself out in the past twenty years or so.


Currently virtually no Western Trotskyist organisation is explicitly homophobic in the organisational sense. In the past, they did exist, for instance Ted Grant, one of the key theorists in what was then known as the Militant Tendency (now the CWI), once remarked that gay politics is a kind of "petit-bourgeois nonsense". The Grantists have since completely broken away from the now re-named CWI about 2 decades ago and the CWI today is at least officially pro-LGBT.I can remember quite well a general attitude of mixed tolerance, acceptance and homophobia in all branches of the US Left prior to Stonewall. And yes, the Trotskyists of various flavors were able to adjust their stances much more quickly than the Maoists and Stalinists. As to the current situation, again, I don't know of any group in the US which is either overtly homophobic or has a current reputation for homophobia. There are always individual cases, but I don't know of any public disclosures in recent years.


It is objectively true that generally speaking Trotskyist organisations have a much better record on LGBT issues than Stalinist, Maoist and revisionist organisations. In fact, I think it makes more sense to have a division in terms of the existence of homophobic attitudes along "Trotskyist" and "non-Trotskyist" lines in Marxist politics, rather than along any kind of "cultural" lines. There are more homophobic Western Maoists than Chinese Trotskyists. Generally there is a positive correlation between "attitudes towards LGBT issues" and "proletarian democracy". The more a particular tendency supports direct worker's democracy, the more pro-LGBT it tends to be.I certainly agree with you there.


There are schmucks in every group. Never seen it to fail.

[QUOTE=Iseul;1876200(One example of implicit racism: your thread here using LGBT politics as an excuse to attack the Chinese left)Uh, Comrade, I think you're overboard here. I started this thread to deal with homophobia on the Left. There has been discussion of China, Russia, etc. It's perfectly valid to use LGBT attitudes to judge a Marxist organization in any country. In fact, of course, it was information from you that was an inspiration for this thread in the first place. Your insinuation of "implicit racism" is bullshit.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

I guess I'm just ignorant then. :D

Seriously, though, I try to keep current with political issues of left-wing groups of all flavors in the US. I know that various groups, especially Maoist and Stalinist, have had problems with homophobia in the past. But organizationally, everything seems to have sorted itself out in the past twenty years or so.



While this is basically true for Trotskyist, Left Communist and anarchist groups in the West, even today there are still Stalinist, Maoist and revisionist groups that are explicitly homophobic. Don't become utopian on this issue.

[RED DAVE]

Well this is basically true for Trotskyist, Left Communist and anarchist groups in the West, even today there are still Stalinist, Maoist and revisionist groups that are explicitly homophobic. Don't become utopian on this issue.I am far from utopian or liberal on this issue, which is why I started this thread.

Can you give some concrete examples of "Stalinist, Maoist and revisionist groups that are currently explicitly homophobic," especially in the US? And, for the sake of Comrade A's soul, could you give some more details about the homophobia of the Chinese Left Maoists (assuming of course that you and they exist).

RED DAVE

[Soviet dude]

The SWP, basically the largest America Trotskyist party, still kicked gay people out of their group until past the Barnes takeover, saying they were a security risk.

[Queercommie Girl]

The SWP, basically the largest America Trotskyist party, still kicked gay people out of their group until past the Barnes takeover, saying they were a security risk.

That's interesting considering that the British SWP is actually generally speaking one of the most pro-LGBT socialist groups here.

[Queercommie Girl]

For those who think that in early USSR homosexuality was equated with pedophilia, do you think that since "pedik" only technically refers to male homosexuals, does this mean a double standard existed in those days and female homosexuality was actually completely tolerated?

[Queercommie Girl]

And, for the sake of Comrade A's soul, could you give some more details about the homophobia of the Chinese Left Maoists (assuming of course that you and they exist).

RED DAVE

While no doubt homophobic attitudes exist among Maoists in China today, AFAIK no Chinese Maoist group (such as the MCPC) has got any kind of official position on LGBT issues at all, one way or another. Even the ruling Chinese Communist Party has an officially "neutral" position on homosexuality, based on the "Three No's": "No Support, No Promotion, No Opposition". But I've certainly seen explicitly homophobic comments in articles on Chinese socialist forums based in mainland China.

Actually I think for some Chinese socialists and leftists, transgenderism in the limited "trans-sexual" sense is actually more acceptable than homosexuality, as the former is not treated as a matter of "identity politics" or "sexual liberalisation" (which most Chinese socialists oppose) at all, but just an issue of basic medical welfare.

[Soviet dude]

The issue was pretty hotly debated in the American SWP. NAMBLA-cofounder, pedophile, and Trotskyist David Thorstad has written quite a bit about it, amongst his other wacky shit.

Homosexuality and the American Left: The Impact of Stonewall (http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Homosexuality_and_the_american_left.doc)

"The Socialist Workers Party vs. Gay Liberation (or The Cuckoo Builds a Strange Nest)" (http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=%22The_Socialist_Workers_Party_vs. _Gay_Liberation_%28or_The_Cuckoo_Builds_a_Strange_ Nest%29%22)

[Soviet dude]

For those who think that in early USSR homosexuality was equated with pedophilia, do you think that since "pedik" only technically refers to male homosexuals, does this mean a double standard existed in those days and female homosexuality was actually completely tolerated?

Yes. There was basically no social understanding to even 'get' female homosexuality in Russia. The anti-homosexuality laws in the 1930s were basically also aimed at only reactionary elements. There aren't any cases of widespread persecution of homosexuals that I'm aware of in the USSR.

[RED DAVE]

The SWP, basically the largest America Trotskyist party, still kicked gay people out of their group until past the Barnes takeover, saying they were a security risk.This is interesting because by the mid-70s the SWP had basically given up class struggle and was completely involved in indentity politics, including gay liberation.


That's interesting considering that the British SWP is actually generally speaking one of the most pro-LGBT socialist groups here.The British SWP and the US SWP were/are completely different branches of the Trotskyist tendency (in the broadest sense). The British SWP are the Cliffites; the US SWP were the Orthodox Trotskysists in the US. Who knows what they are now.

Here is Roland Sheppard's take on the US SWP, which pretty much corresponds with what I remember.


A large majority of the party, isolated from the class, wanted to get into the gay liberation movement which tended towards counter culturalism. The newspaper of the SWP, The Militant, had an interventionist line, and reflected this mood. Most comrades thought that this was the position of the Party leadership. The leader of the party, Jack Barnes, provided no leadership on this tactical question other than to correct a previously position (his) against homosexuality and supported the democratic rights of homosexuals to be members of the SWP and their general democratic rights in society.

When Barnes and the party leadership changed their position on going into the Gay Liberation Movement, it was disgusting to see such advocates of Gay Liberation on the Nation Committee, like Harry Ring, immediately turn, in lock step with Barnes, without an argument. Not only Harry Ring, but the majority of the party membership, who had argued for intervention, changed their position on this question literally overnight when Barnes clicked his fingers. The whole episode was indicative of a non-thinking cult loyal to Jack Barnes. This was a sign that the Party had become a cult. (It was pointed out to me, at the time of the vote, by Comrade Ann Chester who was for intervening into the Gay Liberation Movement.)http://web.mac.com/rolandgarret/iWeb/site/The%20Degeneration%20of%20the%20Socialist%20Worker s%20Party%20%28SWP%29.html

RED DAVE

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

When you read so called "leftists" besmirching homosextuals, it just brings me back to an old saying, "there is a difference between reading a book and studying a book". They have read Marx, Lenin etc.but they did not STUDY Marx and Lenin.They use the red flag and pictures of Marx and Lenin as shock value, to get attention, but have no comprehension at all of what they stood for, of what Marxism is.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

For what its worth

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/After-India-Nepal-China-under-Maoist-threat/articleshow/6446130.cms#ixzz0xrQ0mWc0

[Queercommie Girl]

I would hesitate to call it their culture with regards to China. First because you're dealing with a massive and diverse group of people spread out over a large area with different customs etc. Second, because homosexual relationships were common in various regions and classes in China before the Qing dynasty. Indeed when the Qing dynasty instituted the first law against homosexuality, it was the lightest punishment that existed within the Qing legal system. General homophobia only really came into the picture as a result of European colonialism from my understanding.

You are just romanticising "eastern cultures" like Confucianism again. Do you really think the non-European world was just like a kind of "paradise of equality" for LGBT people before the age of colonialism?

Objectively homophobic attitudes may be less in Confucian China than in Christian Europe, but certainly not by as much as you seem to think. Firstly, although homosexuality was only legally punished in ancient China during some periods (such as the Qing, but the Qing was not the only period), it was still explicitly illegal. Secondly, in ancient Chinese culture laws in the Western sense had less weight than in Europe. Many issues were not decided directly through laws, but through social customs and rites of clans and villages etc. And it is certain that despite the fact that homosexuality was not explicitly illegal during many periods of feudal China, objectively it was just as bad for most LGBT people as if homosexuality was literally illegal, because any gay person would most likely be made into a social outcast by their own family and clan.

As socialists, surely we should know that legal equality does not imply real social equality at all?

According to the bourgeois law of the UK right now, LGBT people already have virtually full equality. Does this mean LGBT people in the UK have already achieved anywhere near genuine social and cultural equality? I really don't think so.

Capitalists claim that under capitalism everyone is legally equal. This is technically true but is there any equality in real terms between a big capitalist and an unemployed worker? I really don't think so.

Feudal and bourgeois laws mean absolutely shit in reality. Trying to arguing that homophobia didn't exist in pre-colonial China simply fails completely.

[Audeamus]

You are just romanticising "eastern cultures" like Confucianism again. Do you really think the non-European world was just like a kind of "paradise of equality" for LGBT people before the age of colonialism?

No, I don't. Nor do I believe I ever said that.


Objectively homophobic attitudes may be less in Confucian China than in Christian Europe, but certainly not by as much as you seem to think. Firstly, although homosexuality was only legally punished in ancient China during some periods (such as the Qing, but the Qing was not the only period), it was still explicitly illegal. Secondly, in ancient Chinese culture laws in the Western sense had less weight than in Europe. Many issues were not decided directly through laws, but through social customs and rites of clans and villages etc. And it is certain that despite the fact that homosexuality was not explicitly illegal during many periods of feudal China, objectively it was just as bad for most LGBT people as if homosexuality was literally illegal, because any gay person would most likely be made into a social outcast by their own family and clan.

You seem to be wholly ignoring the first bit of what I said. As I said, China is a large and diverse region. Certainly homosexuality would be looked down upon and shunned as a matter of custom in many areas and classes. The degree to which it was, however, varied. For example, during the Ming dynasty the province of Fujian was noted as being a place where homosexuality was tolerated, though contemporary observers noted that homosexual practices existed throughout China. My point was not that China was a totally equal society as far as homosexuality was concerned or that homophobia did not exist in Chinese society, but that the homosexual traditions that did exist in Chinese society were repressed with the advent of colonialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

China is a large and diverse region.


Yes, but what we consider today to be the "region of China" mainly inherited its culture from the Han Chinese, and Han culture is actually relatively homogenous given the huge size of this ethnic group.



Certainly homosexuality would be looked down upon and shunned as a matter of custom in many areas and classes.
In ancient China social customs and rites often functioned in a similar way to actual laws in the West, which is one reason why there was less of a need to explicitly criminalise homosexuality.



The degree to which it was, however, varied. For example, during the Ming dynasty the province of Fujian was noted as being a place where homosexuality was tolerated, though contemporary observers noted that homosexual practices existed throughout China.
Yes, there were homosexual prostitutes in some large cities, which was the only profession they could work in since they were social outcasts. If you want to call this pathetic state of affairs "tolerance", well that's up to you. I guess at least they were not directly killed, huh?



but that the homosexual traditions that did exist in Chinese society were repressed with the advent of colonialism.
You are conflating European colonialism in China with European colonialism in the Americas, Africa and even India. Essentially you are over-estimating the cultural impact of European colonialism in China. China was never conquered by the Europeans as a nation like how the Amercias, Africa and India were conquered. Colonial exploitation of China was often more indirect, through economical rather than directly militaristic or cultural means. European culture, such as Christianity, never really penetrated deep into China at any time in Chinese history, (in fact, Marxism is pretty much the only European cultural tradition that has really been absorbed by the Chinese) so to suggest that modern Chinese homophobia is the result of the direct influence of European Christian culture during the colonial era is clearly ridiculous. Christians have always been a tiny minority in China, both during the colonial era and now. China isn't the Zulu or the Aztecs. When European colonialism was expanding across the globe, the Manchu Qing empire was engaging in its own lower-level local imperialism in Xinjiang and Tibet. The Chinese colonists actually defeated the Dutch colonists in Taiwan in 1662.

The little bit of "homosexual culture" among prostitutes during the Ming was surpressed by the Manchus, not by the Europeans. Although the Manchus were not Han Chinese ethnically, culturally they thoroughly absorbed Han civilisation and Confucianism.

[Saorsa]

We have a source; we have information; this is not a course in euclidean geometry or a court of law, so we don't need "proof."

We have a set of allegations made by one person about one group. None of these allegations can be independently verified or backed up by any kind of evidence.


A comrade who has been posting here for a long time, whose politics differ from yours, has given some information about the Chinese left-wing Maoists.

Actually I suspect Iseul and me have more in common politically than he would have with you. I rarely disagree with his posts.


Are you saying they don't exist? Has Iseul made them up?

I'm saying we don't know. And I'm saying that until we do, we should reserve judgment.


But you have disrespected him, which is par for the course for you. Disrespecting your poltical opponents is one of the things you do whenever you're cornered politically. When you can't deal with the message, you insult the messenger.

Well, if Iseul feels offended I apologise. And I'll admit I've often been needlessly rude towards political opponents in the past.

The only point I'm making is that when the only evidence we have for the existence of the MCPC is Iseul's word, we should take a very cautious approach. I really hope that it does exist, nothing would make me happier... but I think the far left has a real problem of jumping to conclusions based on little or no evidence.


Are those your criteria for truth? That a comrade should be an academic or researcher? (What is the IRL?)

IRL = in real life

Of course I don't think academics define truth. My point is that if Iseul was an irl academic/researcher, it would be possible to verify his claims and his word would have to be taken seriously. While I respect what he has to say and genuinely hope it's true, I'm not going to just take it on face value.

Are you really suggesting we should automatically believe what members of this forum say as long as they've been here for a while?


Well, then, I guess we should trust university professors over left-wing activists. Where do you teach? Are you a full professor, an adjunct, an assistant. Do you have a PhD? If not, drop out of this forum, and don't come back until you're Prof. A.

Strawman Dave.


No one said they were. No one has come up with any evidence to the contrary, including you.

The burden of proof ain't on me.

I'm saying we should reserve judgement and stop speculating until we have more evidence. My position is based on the absence of evidence.

Are you seriously saying I need evidence to back up my position? :confused:


He's a comrade here. That surely counts for something, or do we only trust academics or researchers? I'm writing a piece now about a black American socialist, a former slave who wrote three books about socialism. Screw him because he wasn't an academic or a researcher. (Nether am I for that matter. )

Of course it counts for something. But I like to have evidence before I believe something to be true.


It's also *possible* that you're a seven foot tall space alien.

Actually it's quite easy to verify my identity. I have a Facebook profile, there are many media reports about my political activities, there are youtube videos of me... That was a bad example.


That's big of you A, because if you didn't "think without a doubt" that they existed, I guess they wouldn't exist.

Right...


That's a hell of a disagreement after 100 years or so of left-wing crusading against homophobia and for the rights of LGBT people, which has intensified over the past forty years or so.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this one.


We have some pretty good information from a pretty reliable source: Iseul.

How on earth do we know Iseul is reliable?

This is just a thinly veiled attempt by you to use the issue of queer oppression as a way to bash Maoists. You're a lot less subtle than you think.

[Crux]

Currently virtually no Western Trotskyist organisation is explicitly homophobic in the organisational sense. In the past, they did exist, for instance Ted Grant, one of the key theorists in what was then known as the Militant Tendency (now the CWI), once remarked that gay politics is a kind of "petit-bourgeois nonsense". The Grantists have since completely broken away from the now re-named CWI about 2 decades ago and the CWI today is at least officially pro-LGBT.
Nothing "at least officially" about it, we take active part in the struggle for LGBT-rights. I do know we had a debate on the last congress with the group of members that has now departed from us, about LGBT-rights, where they took a very...mild position, wary of even the word heteronormativity. They don't "get" LGBT-struggle.

[Queercommie Girl]

For what its worth

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/After-India-Nepal-China-under-Maoist-threat/articleshow/6446130.cms#ixzz0xrQ0mWc0

I think Times of India got their information on the MCPC solely from my thread on RevLeft, they even used my translation. So it's still circular. :D

[Saorsa]

Nice to know they pay attention to us! :lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

Nothing "at least officially" about it, we take active part in the struggle for LGBT-rights. I do know we had a debate on the last congress with the group of members that has now departed from us, about LGBT-rights, where they took a very...mild position, wary of even the word heteronormativity. They don't "get" LGBT-struggle.

When Grant was still a part of the Militant Tendency, was his homophobic slurs a reflection of the fact that the organisation as a whole back then was not pro-LGBT, or was it just his personal bigotry?

[Crux]

When Grant was still a part of the Militant Tendency, was his homophobic slurs a reflection of the fact that the organisation as a whole back then was not pro-LGBT, or was it just his personal bigotry? More of personal bigotry rather, we were pro-LGBT, but not in a "leading the struggle" way, sadly. This might have insulated rather than rectified some backwards views that individual members might have had, although I don't think it's an out-and-out homophobic slur on Grants behalf, rather it shows a terrible lack of insight. Back in the 70's and 60's lots of groups on the left, particularity some trotskyist groups, fell into the swamp of "identity politics", as a reaction to that CWI tried to focus more on "pure" working class issues. A mistaken approach I believe, as it is not really an either-or issue, but keep in mind that I say focus, not reject. Again, Grant's statement was not the opinion of the CWI at that time or at any time. I believe this is also addressed in "The History of the CWI".
And again, if our position was too mild and lacking before, I believe we have done a good work to rectify that in the last 20 years or so. Today virtually all of our sections, to the extent they are able have active LGBT-groups, and if lacking that, due to size or similar issues, at least a clear perspective.
Also, I've only been active in the CWI since 07 so clearly I wasn't around back in the day, so I apologize beforehand if I have exaggerated eventual shortcoming's. The best person to ask on here would probably be Jolly Red Giant, if he's still around.
As for our present work, a quick search on LGBT on socialistworld.net brings up 1260 hits.

I could also get into some of the specifics of our LGBT work in sweden (where we have recently established a separate LGBT organization for party members and sympathisers) if you like.

[Queercommie Girl]

More of personal bigotry rather, we were pro-LGBT, but not in "leading the struggle" way, sadly. This might have insulated rather than rectified some backwards views that individual members might have had, although I don't think it's an out-and-out homophobic slur on Grants behalf, rather it shows a terrible lack of insight. Back in the 70's and 60's lots of groups on the left, particularity some trotskyist groups, fell into the swamp of "identity politics", as a reaction to that CWI tried to focus more on "pure" working class issues. A mistaken approach I believe, as it is not really an either-or issue, but keep in mind that I say focus, not reject. Again, Grant's statement was not the opinion of the CWI at that time or at any time. I believe this is also addressed in "The History of the CWI".
And again, if our position was too mild and lacking before, I believe we have done a good work to rectify that in the last 20 years or so. Today virtually all of our sections, to the extent they are able have active LGBT-groups, and if lacking that, due to size or similar issues, at least a clear perspective.

Well ok. I wasn't actually criticising the CWI on this issue, just asking for more information and clarification on this matter.

[Crux]

Well ok. I wasn't actually criticising the CWI on this issue, just asking for more information and clarification on this matter. Well, we've taken active part and made interventions in the Pride demonstrations, even holding an organizing role for official demo's in some countries where repression is specifically hard like Poland and Russia. Our latin american groups also have made some very good new material and taken active part in the LGBT-struggle. Sadly homophobic "machismo" views are still relatively common in latin america as well.
Our Hong Kong branch also produced this material for the latest Pride demo in HK: http://www.chinaworker.info/zh/content/news/890/

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, we've taken active part and made interventions in the Pride demonstrations, even holding an organizing role for official demo's in some countries where repression is specifically hard like Poland and Russia. Our latin american groups also have made some very good new material and taken active part in the LGBT-struggle. Sadly homophobic "machismo" views are still relatively common in latin america as well.

Ok, thanks for the info.

Obviously I take LGBT politics very seriously, but I'm far from a "single-issue" activist. I'm working with people who are explicitly not pro-LGBT, like the Maoist MCPC based in mainland China. (Of course they are not explicitly homophobic either)

Sometimes I think by working with people who are homophobic/transphobic, or are skeptical about LGBT issues, LGBT activists can objectively win more people over to the cause, rather than just "preach to the converted" all the time.

Socialist politics to some extent is about "winning people's hearts", and this is true not just in LGBT activism.

[Crux]

Ok, thanks for the info.

Obviously I take LGBT politics very seriously, but I'm far from a "single-issue" activist. I'm working with people who are explicitly not pro-LGBT, like the Maoist MCPC based in mainland China. (Of course they are not explicitly homophobic either)

Sometimes I think by working with people who are homophobic/transphobic, or are skeptical about LGBT issues, LGBT activists can objectively win more people over to the cause, rather than just "preach to the converted" all the time.

Socialist politics to some extent is about "winning people's hearts", and this is true not just in LGBT activism.
I would hope that any organization worth joining is also one were you can be open about your sexual orientation and gender identity, but of course this is a continuous struggle against prevailing attitudes in society.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Also, I've only been active in the CWI since 07 so clearly I wasn't around back in the day, so I apologize beforehand if I have exaggerated eventual shortcoming's. The best person to ask on here would probably be Jolly Red Giant, if he's still around.

Ted Grant's attitude was not so much that homosexuality was 'petty bourgeois nonsense' but that it was a 'petty bourgeois deviation'. Grant was the only member of the CWI that I ever heard expressing such comments and I think it was probably a reflection of his own background and upbringing as anything else. I do not remember a single individual that ever supported Grant in his outlook, but few argued with him about it. From what I recall it was not something he willingly discussed and Grant tended to cause an almighty row whenever the issue came up.

As regards the attitude of the CWI - it think this is best reflected in the situation in Bermondsey in the 1983 By-election in Britain. Around 1979/80 the Militant Tendency and others on the left, won control of the Bermondsey Constituency Labour Party. Rather than put forward a member of the Militant as perspective LP candidate the Militant supported Peter Thatchell. The LP NEC refused to ratify Thatchell as the general election candidate, but the right-wing MP Robert Mellish resigned anyway and caused a by-election. The Militant again supported Thatchell as the by-election candidate.

During the by-election campaign the Militant printed leaflets for Thatchell and were very prominent in the campaign. At the same time the media, the Liberals and the right-wing LP rump around Mellish (who ran an independent candidate) engaged in a vicious homophobic campaign against Thatchell. The Liberals won the by-election by 13% of the vote (nearly 10,000 votes), taking a massive slice of the Tory vote, some of the LP vote and were assisted by the independent labour campaign.

For the 1983 General election the constituency was replaced by Southwark and Bermondsey and Thatchell was replaced by right-winger John Tilly who failed to regain the seat. By 1987 Miltant and the left had again regained control of the constituency LP and Militant member John Bryan was the candidate. Bryan came within 4,000 of taking the seat from Simon Hughes with a 5% swing to the LP, I think it was probably the closest any candidate has come to taking the seat since Hughes was elected in the by-election.

If Grant's attitude was in any way prevalent within the CWI then the Militant would have supported one of their own members as the candidate rather than support Thatchell and certain would not have played such a prominent role in his election campaign.

To quote from 'The History of Militant' -
(the LP had just expelled the five members of the Militant Editorial Board in the run up to the by-election)
The right wing took this action, in the knowledge that it was bound to split the Party, on the eve of the vital Bermondsey by-election.
This was widely seen as a test run for the general election. Bermondsey Labour Party together, with 50 or 60 other Labour Party bodies, had approached Cambridge Heath Press, which printed Militant, to print some of their election material.

This became the excuse for a further hue and cry against Militant and the Left. At the same time, the right pursued a policy of distancing themselves from the Labour candidate Peter Tatchell. This, together with the dirty anti-gay publicity against Tatchell, largely through a Liberal whispering campaign, resulted in the defeat of Labour in what was once a solid Labour seat.

During the by-election the press had given their blessing to John O’Grady, the so-called ‘Real Labour’ candidate. When it became clear that he could not beat Peter Tatchell, there was a decisive and orchestrated switch from O’Grady and his supporters towards Simon Hughes, the Liberal candidate.

As a postscript - Simon Hughes was outed by The Sun for having homosexual relations and acknowledged that he was bisexual. Interestingly at the same time (in 2006) he apologised for the 1983 homophobic campaign against Thatchell.