conservative communist

[wolverine]

is it possible to still have conservative values and still think communist economics are the way to go? i mean like views on religion but without forcing it on anyone or not judging anyone on theirs, homosexuality --i dont like it personally but i dont judge others, and stuff like that. is this still accurate to be a leftist with these views?

[Kamos]

Regarding religion, perhaps, depending on how conservative exactly. I wouldn't say so. Regarding homosexuality, definitely not. In general, definitely not.

Also, if you
dont like it personally but dont judge others, then you're not a conservative in that.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Wasn't the Soviet Union very socially conservative for the most part?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Wasn't the Soviet Union very socially conservative for the most part?

yes but it wasn't communist so it doesn't really make a case.

i tend to see conservative values as imposed from the ideological apparatus in the given social order, i.e. organised religion or the media. in a world without a ruling class with a need to condition its slaves into accepting their place, morals and values would be decided on socially and freely, or so i think.

[Ocean Seal]

is it possible to still have conservative values and still think communist economics are the way to go? i mean like views on religion but without forcing it on anyone or not judging anyone on theirs, homosexuality --i dont like it personally but i dont judge others, and stuff like that. is this still accurate to be a leftist with these views?
I am religious and I am a revolutionary leftist. So religion is definitely no problem unless you wish to interfere in the religious beliefs of anyone else or use your beliefs to justify oppression or prevent equality.
However, in saying that you don't like homosexuality I ask why? Homosexuality does not do anything against the consent of anyone. Therefore I'm not sure what you mean you don't like it? As in you condemn it but wish to allow for the freedom for them to practice homosexuality? You could live in a communist society and act that way but it is highly counter-productive and reactionary. If you believe that homosexuals are entitled to the same freedoms as heterosexuals and that they should not be discriminated against on a covert or overt level you can be a leftist. However, otherwise you really can't be a leftist. Leftism is about equality for all, it cannot exclude anyone.

[Terminator X]

is it possible to still have conservative values and still think communist economics are the way to go?

Sure, you can think whatever you want. Doesn't mean you're a leftist, though.

Also, I'm curious to see what other "conservative values" you hold, for instance, on the issue of abortion - if you are anti-choice, you are clearly not a leftist.

[wolverine]

I am religious and I am a revolutionary leftist. So religion is definitely no problem unless you wish to interfere in the religious beliefs of anyone else or use your beliefs to justify oppression or prevent equality.
However, in saying that you don't like homosexuality I ask why? Homosexuality does not do anything against the consent of anyone. Therefore I'm not sure what you mean you don't like it? As in you condemn it but wish to allow for the freedom for them to practice homosexuality? You could live in a communist society and act that way but it is highly counter-productive and reactionary. If you believe that homosexuals are entitled to the same freedoms as heterosexuals and that they should not be discriminated against on a covert or overt level you can be a leftist. However, otherwise you really can't be a leftist. Leftism is about equality for all, it cannot exclude anyone.

i guess i worded that wrong. i meant i am not a homosexual myself is all i meant. personally i dont give a damn what anyone does in their own bedroom, and dont think about it or condemn it but i just dont feel it should be taught in classrooms as an option. i think children are impressionable and i feel that the homosexual community tries to push their agenda in schools nowadays. am i wrong?

[Dumb]

What matters isn't so much the attitudes one holds on those issues, but rather how one believes the public sphere should handle those issues. I don't see what's wrong with disliking abortion, for instance, as long as one is okay with the public keeping out of that matter altogether.

[wolverine]

Sure, you can think whatever you want. Doesn't mean you're a leftist, though.

Also, I'm curious to see what other "conservative values" you hold, for instance, on the issue of abortion - if you are anti-choice, you are clearly not a leftist.

no, i feel abortion is a personal choice, not one the govt. should will upon people. i do feel that the paternal source should have some kind of say in it though.

[Dunk]

I'll list a couple concepts to help wolverine before his or her possible restriction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

What do you mean when you say you don't like homosexuality?

Also, why did you choose the name "wolverine"? Did you take it from the 80s movie Red Dawn?

To answer your question, it is possible to be a communist and be religious or socially conservative, although I tend to think of religious communists as temporarily confused. They accept the premise of the supernatural yet also paradoxically accept the radical challenge to capitalism, which to me is a contradiction that must cause cognitive dissonance which could only be resolved by ignoring the contradiction - or possibly through the acrobatics of scriptural apologia. Socially conservative communists make very bad communists. Our ultimate goal is the liberation of humankind, not in the continued marginalization or oppression of certain groups, whether based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or even religious beliefs. If you come into a greater understanding of the why and how the marginalization and oppression of certain groups exists today, your old prejudices are likely to "whither away".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I understand the impulse behind being socially conservative, its essentilly a protectionist measure, trying to hold on to something which is seen as being under threat. Being socially conservative though can be tricky. Generally it would mean accepting and defending institutions and traditions of society that were created to uphold a certain social system. One should understand the processes which created these institutions and traditions. The Church says homosexuality is bad, why do they say this? Why is the biblical strictures against homosexuality constantly brought up and not the ban on eating shellfish, or wearing clothing made from blended fibers?

Having said this, there is nothing wrong about choosing a "conservative" lifestyle of voluntary restraint and discipline and there can be much good. Some leftists I know are "straightedge", they choose not to drink, use drugs, or not to have pre-maital sex.There have been radical groups partly based around this lifestyle.

Its okay to be religious. Its okay to feel the idea of homosexual sex is personally repulsive, as long as one completely accepts and advocates the right of people who are homosexual.This doesn't mean you can't have a radical critique of society.

In the US Socialist Party in the early 1900s there were a fair number of "Christian socialists" centered around Oklahoma and Kansas. There were fundamentalist Baptist preachers who read Marx and called each other "comrade" . This is the kind of history the ruling class doesn't want you to know about.

[tachosomoza]

There are populists from the South like Mike Huckabee who are socially conservative, but embrace some aspects of leftist economic thought.

[Obs]

i guess i worded that wrong. i meant i am not a homosexual myself is all i meant. personally i dont give a damn what anyone does in their own bedroom, and dont think about it or condemn it but i just dont feel it should be taught in classrooms as an option. i think children are impressionable and i feel that the homosexual community tries to push their agenda in schools nowadays. am i wrong?

Yes. You are dead wrong.

[Terminator X]

i guess i worded that wrong. i meant i am not a homosexual myself is all i meant. personally i dont give a damn what anyone does in their own bedroom, and dont think about it or condemn it but i just dont feel it should be taught in classrooms as an option. i think children are impressionable and i feel that the homosexual community tries to push their agenda in schools nowadays. am i wrong?

This is a rather reactionary line to take, and I wouldn't be surprised to see you restricted for it. What is this "homosexual agenda" in schools of which you speak?

There is currently extreme right-wing legislation pending in Tennessee regarding the use of the word "gay" in public schools - is this what you are referencing and do you agree with this legislation?


Tennessee state senator Stacey Campfield (pictured) doesn’t want public school teachers to tell students anything about homosexuality — and he wants to debate his “don’t say gay” bill with gay playwright and filmmaker Del Shores.A senate committee this week voted 6-3 to advance Campfield’s bill to consideration by the full senate, reports the Knoxville News Sentinel. The legislation would prohibit teachers from discussing homosexuality in public school classes in kindergarten through eighth grade.http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/04/22/Tenn_Senator_Dont_Say_Gay/

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are populists from the South like Mike Huckabee who are socially conservative, but embrace some aspects of leftist economic thought.

Mike Huckabee isn't a leftist, though, but I know what you're getting at.

Maybe you have the Radical Center in mind instead?

[hatzel]

They accept the premise of the supernatural yet also paradoxically accept the radical challenge to capitalismWhere's the paradox here, or the contradiction? :confused: Last time I checked, most major religions predate capitalism by quite a few years, and make very few mentions of 'yo yo yo capitalism is da shit, bro, y'all gotta like it!' Methinks you're bullshitting, but this isn't the religion forum, so I won't discuss it further. Because we've already had plenty of threads over there which have exposed such a statement as totally fallacious. Feel free to necro one of them, though, if you'd like to argue your point...I can't see it being a particularly strong argument, though, sorry...

[#FF0000]

but i just dont feel it should be taught in classrooms as an option.

Well, in a sex ed. class, it'd be foolish to just ignore it. Are gay youth supposed to just figure shit out themselves?


i think children are impressionable and i feel that the homosexual community tries to push their agenda in schools nowadays. am i wrong?

You can't be "made gay", though. No matter how impressionable you are, you can just be turned gay.

And this "homosexual agenda" stuff is absolute nonsense. Who is the homosexual community? What is their agenda, exactly? And if you don't think homosexuality is wrong, then why is it a problem if youth are made aware of it (at an age-appropriate level)?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

i guess i worded that wrong. i meant i am not a homosexual myself is all i meant. personally i dont give a damn what anyone does in their own bedroom, and dont think about it or condemn it but i just dont feel it should be taught in classrooms as an option. i think children are impressionable and i feel that the homosexual community tries to push their agenda in schools nowadays. am i wrong?

Speaking as someone who has worked in several US school system, there is certainly no sinister "gay agenda". Indeed persecution and bullying of students who are perceived as gay is a huge problem in US schools and has resulted in suicides.

Highschool kids are in a process of discovery, finding out who and what they are. We need to teach tolerance and understanding.

When some degree of tolerance and understanding of sexual minorities are taught, there's hysteria from Christian fundamentalists that someone is "pushing a gay agenda" down their throats. This is merely another form of homophobia.This is doubly ironic because there seems to be an incredible amount of barely surppresed homoerotocism within the most homophobic conservative Christian groups like "Focus On The Family". Scandals break out virtually every month with these people and its hard to see how they are taken the least bit seriously by anyone.

You may want to research Matthew Shephard and Tyler Clementi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi

[Rooster]

No. You can't. It is an oxymoron.

[Snacsnoc]

I don't see a problem with practicing a religion, but if that gets in the way of being a leftist then that's different.

[Kamos]

Congratulations OP, you're officially a rightist.

[Dunk]

Where's the paradox here, or the contradiction? :confused: Last time I checked, most major religions predate capitalism by quite a few years, and make very few mentions of 'yo yo yo capitalism is da shit, bro, y'all gotta like it!' Methinks you're bullshitting, but this isn't the religion forum, so I won't discuss it further. Because we've already had plenty of threads over there which have exposed such a statement as totally fallacious. Feel free to necro one of them, though, if you'd like to argue your point...I can't see it being a particularly strong argument, though, sorry...

Oh, that subforum in the "Opposing Ideologies"? I'll be sure to check it out.

[Agent Ducky]

OP doesn't seem to be homophobic. Just seems to be mislead by propaganda like California had during the Prop 8 campaign where they were talking about "teaching homosexuality in schools".... when did anyone ever actually say we were going to teach that in schools? OP seems to be persuaded by said straw man argument that was used (effectively... somehow) during California's Proposition 8 campaign.

[tachosomoza]

Mike Huckabee isn't a leftist, though, but I know what you're getting at.

Maybe you have the Radical Center in mind instead?

I was actually saying that his views are more progressive than those of most of his peers in the GOP. When he was Governor of Arkansas, he supported extending health insurance to lower-income children. Also, he supported environmental and anti-racist legislation as well. You'll find that a lot of Christians are like this, especially the ones from a plebe background. Don't say anything blatantly supporting same-sex/trans/etc rights, or abortion rights, or anything else that may conflict with their little black book, but it's perfectly fine to support progressive economic and social welfare policies.

[tachosomoza]

OP doesn't seem to be homophobic. Just seems to be mislead by propaganda like California had during the Prop 8 campaign where they were talking about "teaching homosexuality in schools".... when did anyone ever actually say we were going to teach that in schools? OP seems to be persuaded by said straw man argument that was used (effectively... somehow) during California's Proposition 8 campaign.

How the hell can you "teach homosexuality?" Guess the old cliche applies here.

[The Red Next Door]

Do you there are gay conservatives? Homosexuality is normal and natural unlike that piece of lying book we called the bible says, There should not be a ideological label on supporting gay rights since not all gays are liberal or marxist.

[Devrim]

Of course we don't have anything like this in our country, so I have always been a bit curious as to what 'teaching homosexuality in schools' actually means.

Do the teachers actually give some practical lessons and bugger a few kids in the classroom? Or if you don't go to a catholic school has it really got nothing at all to do with 'teaching homosexuality', and is really just about telling kids something totally evil and against all civilised values like "it is OK to love who you want to love who you want to".

Devrim

[jake williams]

The only real "conservative values" are the preservation of the monarchy and the old Christian church (either Anglican or Catholic). Anything else is a mask for other politics.

"Social conservativism" was invented by the ruling class in a conscious and cynical attempt to invest the working class in their own domination, by masking political economic issues with a haze of "cultural issues" and "traditional values" as a base of cross-class alliance. It's not a real politics.

That said, whatever the individual merits of a given set of "traditional values", having them or not having them has no effect on your interests as a part of the working class - against the ruling class, and against those preaching "social conservatism".

[Dumb]

Considering that we have leftists on this site claiming that you have to support Gaddafi to be a leftist, or that you have to support the rather reactionary Libyan rebels to be a leftist, we've already demonstrated tolerance for a fair amount of heterogeneity on here. It doesn't seem like the OP is fairly adamant about his social conservatism, and if he's adamant about taking down capitalism, fine by me.

[El Chuncho]

yes but it wasn't communist so it doesn't really make a case.

*Yawn* Thanks for that insightful comment, Laird. :rolleyes:

Anyway I am pro-choice and anti-homophobia, but I think it is foolish to claim that homophobia and anti-abortionism bar people from being Communists. It doesn't, it just makes them dicks. I do not recall Marx being specifically pro-abortion or homosexuality. Should communists be pro-choice? Yes, I think so. Should communists be against homophobia? Yes, I think so. Are all communists pro-choice and anti-homophobia? No. Does it mean that they are not communists? No.

[twenty percent tip]

yea its possinbnle. all these fake fucks from the burocrats in the eastern block to todays comminst partiers to all these left wing fanatics and tough guy feminisitas who want us to put our dicks and pussies away except for slow missionary sex with the lights out after marriage, and only if were 18or older cause its all we can handle.its all fucking fake.marx and engels used toget drunk and throw fucking rocksinengland/. plusengels was fucking allover town. redemma was a hookerfor a while but shewasnt good enough atit. read her fucking biografy. fuckthese people .enjoy yourfucking life. dont be a puristprude cause youread it in a book. overthrow capitalismand fuck anddo ewhat feels goodas much as you can. once you die you'[re dead. rememebr that

[Omsk]

yea its possinbnle. all these fake fucks from the burocrats in the eastern block to todays comminst partiers to all these left wing fanatics and tough guy feminisitas who want us to put our dicks and pussies away except for slow missionary sex with the lights out after marriage, and only if were 18or older cause its all we can handle.its all fucking fake.marx and engels used toget drunk and throw fucking rocksinengland/. plusengels was fucking allover town. redemma was a hookerfor a while but shewasnt good enough atit. read her fucking biografy. fuckthese people .enjoy yourfucking life. dont be a puristprude cause youread it in a book. overthrow capitalismand fuck anddo ewhat feels goodas much as you can. once you die you'[re dead. rememebr that


What the hell?

[Die Rote Fahne]

i guess i worded that wrong. i meant i am not a homosexual myself is all i meant. personally i dont give a damn what anyone does in their own bedroom, and dont think about it or condemn it but i just dont feel it should be taught in classrooms as an option. i think children are impressionable and i feel that the homosexual community tries to push their agenda in schools nowadays. am i wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Very wrong.

If you're going to teach a health/sex ed course, you have to mention homosexuality and explain that its normal. There are children who struggle with that and are bullied.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. If you think it is, mind telling me when you chose to be straight?

[Ismail]

A good read on the contradictions of American conservatives: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/contradictions_inherent_in_ameri.htm

As for communists and conservative views, there are bound to be homophobes, sexists, racists, and finally reactionaries who promote and incite the former three. In the old days lots of communists had homophobic views, which were because a scientific study of homosexuality did not yet exist. Speaking of this in other subjects, Marx himself believed in phrenology and supported Tremaux (who Engels and modern scientific opinion saw as pseudo-scientific) over Darwin. As far as homophobia went Engels called one homosexual an "ass-fucker."

Racism, sexism and homophobia will, under a society which adheres to scientific socialism, be gradually done away with. The cultural norms which encourage those attitudes will come to an end, as will the economic and political basis for promoting them. Communists who display either of those three "isms" will simply need to be educated, but homophobia for instance will still take a while before being seen as something just about as unfounded as racism and sexism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ill make this point, you can't be a conservative Marxist.

[Ismail]

It depends. If you take homosexuality for instance, Albanian writers denounced homosexuals as "male chauvinists" who, as clan chieftains, kept women in a cattle-like state. Most Albanians didn't even understand the concept of lesbianism (and thus lesbian relationships were not criminalized.) Soviet Marxists held similar views, believing that homosexuality was fostered by feudalism and capitalism, and that it would disappear under socialism because the "material conditions" for it supposedly didn't exist.

Obviously it's a fair bit harder to live in the present-day USA and think that homosexuality arises from clan chieftains, but yeah. We know better, but homophobia is still prevalent amongst many workers (as is racism and sexism.) When communism gains mass appeal in the USA, I'm sure a few notable Marxist homophobes will be around. Racism and sexism are much more obviously in conflict with Marxism than homophobia is, both historically and in the present.

[Kamos]

yea its possinbnle. all these fake fucks from the burocrats in the eastern block to todays comminst partiers to all these left wing fanatics and tough guy feminisitas who want us to put our dicks and pussies away except for slow missionary sex with the lights out after marriage, and only if were 18or older cause its all we can handle.its all fucking fake.marx and engels used toget drunk and throw fucking rocksinengland/. plusengels was fucking allover town. redemma was a hookerfor a while but shewasnt good enough atit. read her fucking biografy. fuckthese people .enjoy yourfucking life. dont be a puristprude cause youread it in a book. overthrow capitalismand fuck anddo ewhat feels goodas much as you can. once you die you'[re dead. rememebr that

This post gets the official Hereward Prize of Making Sense.

[Robocommie]

What the hell?

Looks like somebody had a few before posting angrily on the interclick.

[KurtFF8]

It of course depends on what you mean by "conservative" (the term has some problems just like "Liberal" or even "Leftist") but in some senses: yes you can be a conservative Communist. There was a "Right opposition" in the USSR too you know. And many look at the former GDR as an "experiment in constructing a conservative socialist society" etc. etc.

And let's not forget that most Communist organizations were opposed to homosexuality until embarrassingly recently.

[Queercommie Girl]

And let's not forget that most Communist organizations were opposed to homosexuality until embarrassingly recently.

Lenin legalised homosexuality in 1917.

As for the OP, I wouldn't put "religion" and "homophobia" into the same category, as they are not the same kind of thing, or similarly reactionary.

[Princess Luna]

No Communists should support liberation for all oppressed people or none at all, that means women,gays,non-whites, and of course the working class must all be liberated or i will not support your "revolution". also even Ayn Rand who agreed with conservatives on almost everything, thought they were stupid.


To support something only because it is old or because your god said so is just as stupid as supporting something only because it is new

[Ismail]

Lenin legalised homosexuality in 1917.He did? News to me. Care to quote the decree?

You mean the Tsarist legal code got abolished and anti-homosexuality stuff was in it, yeah. But that was it. Lenin didn't do anything in relation to homosexuality, and Soviet psychiatrists in the 1920's were calling for it to be treated as a mental illness, as was the norm at that time. According to one (hostile) source (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/04/books/the-menshivik-bolshevik-stalinist-feminist.html?pagewanted=all), Lenin would criticize some of his opponents as "acting like a female," which probably doesn't mean "you're gay," but still. Furthermore Chicherin, who was probably the only notable gay Bolshevik, had spent the 1925-1930 period visiting German clinics and trying to "cure" his homosexuality, according to his cousin. Furthermore the 1920's saw Soviet moves against same-sex relationships in Central Asia, since homosexuality and pederasty were seen as the same thing outside of the cities.

For what it's worth it is true that homosexuals were tolerated to a fair extent in the cities in the 1920's, but as noted a great many Soviet officials saw homosexuality as a "sickness" which socialism would peacefully get rid of. When this obviously failed, repression was initiated in the 1930's.

[Savage]

He did? News to me. Care to quote the decree?

You mean the Tsarist legal code got abolished and anti-homosexuality stuff was in it, yeah. But that was it. Lenin didn't do anything in relation to homosexuality, and Soviet psychiatrists in the 1920's were calling for it to be treated as a mental illness, as was the norm at that time. According to one (hostile) source (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/04/books/the-menshivik-bolshevik-stalinist-feminist.html?pagewanted=all), Lenin would criticize some of his opponents as "acting like a female," which probably doesn't mean "you're gay," but still. Furthermore Chicherin, who was probably the only notable gay Bolshevik, had spent the 1925-1930 period visiting German clinics and trying to "cure" his homosexuality, according to his cousin. Furthermore the 1920's saw Soviet moves against same-sex relationships in Central Asia, since homosexuality and pederasty were seen as the same thing outside of the cities.

For what it's worth it is true that homosexuals were tolerated to a fair extent in the cities in the 1920's, but as noted a great many Soviet officials saw homosexuality as a "sickness" which socialism would peacefully get rid of. When this obviously failed, repression was initiated in the 1930's.
By 'anti-homosexual stuff' you mean, the illegality of homosexuality, and so Lenin did effectively legalize homosexuality (as Isuel said) as part of the 'First Family Code of 1918'.

''An interesting exception though came from the new workers’ state in Russia. Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution led by V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky, Russia became the 1st nation to legalize homosexuality. The new Bolshevik legal code contained within it the concept that if there was no victim, there was no crime. This unprecedented championing of sexual freedom gave hope to gays and lesbians the world over.

The new revolutionary state also become an active participant in the World League for Sexual Reform, and sought to educate the world as to why it held the views it did on homosexuality. It should be noted though that the position of the Bolsheviks did not constitute a full-blown endorsement of the ideas of gay liberation. In fact some Bolsheviks held less than enlightened views on homosexuality, but still held to the view that it was a scientific question, not a legal one. An inadequate position, but still head and shoulders above that of any other state of the times.''-The Early Gay Liberation Movement, Adam Richster 2003


Of course, there were those within the Bolsheviks who had reactionary positions on homosexuality, but I think it's still clear as day that the position of Lenin and Trotsky was much less barbaric than that of Stalin, who personally made 8 years of hard labor the constitutional punishment for homosexuality, and who even condemned the Nazis as a movement lead by homosexuals.

[Koba1917]

Communism is a Socio-Economic theory. So No. In the modern use the Conservative values you can't be a Communist. But it's possible to have Socialist economics and be socially Conservative.

[Weezer]

Not the best example of a communist party, but the RCP wanted to "reform" homosexuals until 2001.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Second International and social conservatism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/second-international-and-t104481/index.html)

[mikelepore]

I have been a Marxist continuously since the 1960s, but I have several viewpoints that some people consider conservative. For one, I think it's shameful how much of the left is soft on crime. I say that anyone convicted of committing a violent act should at a minimum get forty years on a chain gang. Another thing is the refusal of the left to admit that the form of ethnic discrimination has changed in recent decades so that white males are frequently the victims. Much of the left is bogged down with an immature habit of contradiction - whatever mom and dad said, just say the opposite, and, on any international issue, you won't have to think when you can automatically blame "America".

[Savage]

I have been a Marxist continuously since the 1960s, but I have several viewpoints that some people consider conservative. For one, I think it's shameful how much of the left is soft on crime. I say that anyone convicted of committing a violent act should at a minimum get forty years on a chain gang. Another thing is the refusal of the left to admit that the form of ethnic discrimination has changed in recent decades so that white males are frequently the victims. Much of the left is bogged down with an immature habit of contradiction - whatever mom and dad said, just say the opposite, and, on any international issue, you won't have to think when you can automatically blame "America".
Are you fucking serious?

[Jose Gracchus]

White nationalism or troll.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Are you fucking serious?

He's dead serious. Look back over his posts. This is just a recent admission among many of reactionary politics. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this coming out of the remnants of DeLeonist sects in the U.S.

Advocating slave labor. How emancipatory and liberating! :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

He's dead serious. Look back over his posts. This is just a recent admission among many of reactionary politics. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this coming out of the remnants of DeLeonist sects in the U.S.

Very true. It is unfortunate that these people have been able to heap so much reactionary shit on top of DeLeon's grave and get away with it for so long.

[Jazzratt]

It's perfectly possible to try clumsily bolting conservative values onto communist ideology. Just bring up drugs somewhere on this forum or, if you don't mind being banned, any views about paedophilia that don't march in lockstep with the Sun.

[El Chuncho]

It's perfectly possible to try clumsily bolting conservative values onto communist ideology. Just bring up drugs somewhere on this forum or, if you don't mind being banned, any views about paedophilia that don't march in lockstep with the Sun.

Many real communists are truly against paedophilia though (many because they were abused when younger). It isn't conservatism. I am not sure what the Sun says about paedophiles, but I know many good socialists who believe that they deserve imprisonment and counseling. Also the drug-issue is complex. The INLA hang drug dealers, which is very extreme but I wouldn't declare them to be ''not communists''.

Again just because we disagree with them, it does not mean that they are un-communist or even conservative, as people can have personal reasons to be against something.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Just bring up drugs somewhere on this forum or

I thought it was the drug-liberals that had the upper-hand here, judging by the number thereof and those stoner-threads and whatnot...

[hatzel]

I thought it was the drug-liberals that had the upper-hand here, judging by the number thereof and those stoner-threads and whatnot...There's still the very vocal minority (or is it the pro-drugs people who are the vocal minority? I dunno) who believe that drug-use is reactionary, counter-revolutionary, terrible stuff, there should be no drugs, there should be no alcohol, it's all a big ol' bourgeois conspiracy to subdue the masses. I giggle at that a little bit. I'm happy to acknowledge that it's probably not a great idea to end up having to inject heroin into your toes, but I'm not entirely sure if I believe it to be an anti-working class activity in and of itself...

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have been a Marxist continuously since the 1960s, but I have several viewpoints that some people consider conservative. For one, I think it's shameful how much of the left is soft on crime. I say that anyone convicted of committing a violent act should at a minimum get forty years on a chain gang. Another thing is the refusal of the left to admit that the form of ethnic discrimination has changed in recent decades so that white males are frequently the victims. Much of the left is bogged down with an immature habit of contradiction - whatever mom and dad said, just say the opposite, and, on any international issue, you won't have to think when you can automatically blame "America".


He's dead serious. Look back over his posts. This is just a recent admission among many of reactionary politics. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this coming out of the remnants of DeLeonist sects in the U.S.

Advocating slave labor. How emancipatory and liberating! :rolleyes:


Very true. It is unfortunate that these people have been able to heap so much reactionary shit on top of DeLeon's grave and get away with it for so long.

Comrades, comrades, this has nothing have to do with "reactionary shit on top of DeLeon's grave." It's outside DeLeonism as a theory.

I see chain gangs as being quite unproductive (less utility) re. deterrence of crimes, certainly in relation to outright class enemies, serious counter-revolutionaries, serial murderers and other capital offenders, grossly corrupt officials, serial rapists, etc. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/prisons-community-service-t150308/index.html) Then there are all the benefits derived from this by private parties that need to be scrapped. Again, all this is just my opinion.

[Red Future]

No one has as yet mentioned that "Conservative Communism" is an ideal way to describe KPRF in Russia .KPRF is clearly socially conservative

Andrei Brezhnev, grandson of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev), has criticised the CPRF's abandonment of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) and Zyuganov's rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-18)

From Wikipedia

[Queercommie Girl]

He did? News to me. Care to quote the decree?

You mean the Tsarist legal code got abolished and anti-homosexuality stuff was in it, yeah. But that was it.


De-criminalising homosexuality was a major step at the time. One needs to put it in its context. This was 1917. How many countries had legalised homosexuality at that time? Britain forced the gay computer scientist Alan Turing to commit suicide even decades later. What the Soviet Union did in 1917 was still a relatively progressive thing.

It's true though that Kollotai did more for LGBT liberation in the early USSR than Lenin himself.



Lenin didn't do anything in relation to homosexuality, and Soviet psychiatrists in the 1920's were calling for it to be treated as a mental illness, as was the norm at that time.
That might have been the attitude of a certain section of the Soviet scientific and medical community, but that doesn't imply that homosexuality was officially considered to be a negative thing. There was no official political writings from this time that formally declares homosexuality as nothing more than a "mental illness".



According to one (hostile) source (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/04/books/the-menshivik-bolshevik-stalinist-feminist.html?pagewanted=all),
You trust biased anti-Soviet sources when it comes to Lenin?

Obviously capitalists have an interest to present Lenin as a homophobe, (just like they have an interest to present Stalin as "Hitler-like") so that they could argue that only capitalism can bring about LGBT liberation, so that LGBT workers would be deterred from socialism. I don't see what interest you would have to present Lenin in such a manner though.



Lenin would criticize some of his opponents as "acting like a female," which probably doesn't mean "you're gay," but still.
This is not homophobic though, it's actually more of a sexist statement more than anything else, the idea that "feminine" things and manners are intrinsically inferior to "masculine" ones. Even among the gay community some people would say things like this. (Some masculine gays would look down on gays who are "effeminate", for example)

It's reactionary to be sure, (and no I don't believe Lenin was perfect, he was a product of his time too) but it's not really homophobic.



Furthermore Chicherin, who was probably the only notable gay Bolshevik, had spent the 1925-1930 period visiting German clinics and trying to "cure" his homosexuality, according to his cousin.
I didn't say there weren't homophobic attitudes in society in general at this time. Hell, there are still homophobic attitudes in society today. But you cannot deny that the early Soviet Union did de-criminalise homosexuality and it was no longer officially opposed. This was limited, to be sure, but it was still a major step forward, relatively speaking.



Furthermore the 1920's saw Soviet moves against same-sex relationships in Central Asia, since homosexuality and pederasty were seen as the same thing outside of the cities.
Perhaps in some rural areas there were indeed links between forms of homosexuality and pedophilia. Also, pre-Soviet Central Asian culture wasn't free of homophobia either. The Soviets didn't add anything to it.



For what it's worth it is true that homosexuals were tolerated to a fair extent in the cities in the 1920's, but as noted a great many Soviet officials saw homosexuality as a "sickness" which socialism would peacefully get rid of. When this obviously failed, repression was initiated in the 1930's.People are a product of their times. Soviet officials are no different. No doubt a lot of prejudices against queer people existed at the time. As long as you recognise that these prejudices are in principle wrong, it's ok.

I agree that what Lenin did for LGBT rights was quite limited, but I don't think you would be able to find any evidence to show that Lenin was actually an explicit homophobe either. (The one example you raised doesn't count, that was a sexist statement, not a homophobic one)

[caramelpence]

From a historical perspective, of course it's possible to be a conservative Communist - the PCI and the other official Communist Parties were notoriously old-fashioned when it came to emerging cultural developments in the 1960s such as pop music and sexual liberation, and the PCI in particular had a highly ambiguous stance on the Italian referendum on divorce reform in 1974. In China, moreover, it's remarkable how many of the struggle sessions during the Cultural Revolution involved accusations of sexual promiscuity against alleged "capitalist roaders", and how much of CR-era discourse was centered around dichotomies between "pure" and "defiled", for example.

Whether it's ideologically or philosophically coherent to claim a Communist orientation at the same time as being "socially conservative" is another matter and I'm inclined to argue that a stance along those lines is fundamentally incoherent, because Marx was concerned not only with resolving the most overt forms of degradation that capitalism produces and maintains (i.e. people simply not having enough to eat or not having a good place to live) but ultimately envisaged a society that would be geared towards human flourishing in the broadest sense, as part of which it would be possible for human beings to pursue their own projects and seek happiness in their own individualized ways - and it's hard to see how a society of that kind, with human flourishing as its basis, would be reconcilable with the moralistic prohibition or condemnation of certain activities or ways of life.

[KurtFF8]

^Exactly, and as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't seem we're all operating on the same definition of what "conservativism" really is. For example, Noam Chomsky (someone who is of course quite controversial amongst just about every segment of the Left for some issue) claims that he is a "conservative."

And my point about homosexuality wasn't just about the fringe RCP, but take a look at Cuban law until quite recently. And Stalin's USSR had quite a long period of a rightward shift via implementing conservative laws and the like.

I'm not advocating Conservative Communism, but I don't think it's in any way a contradiction. It's an important part of the history of the Left, and whether most of us here agree with a lot of it or not, we should not try to just write it off as "reactionary" when instead we should be taking it seriously and trying to understand what it is more thoroughly

[Queercommie Girl]

And my point about homosexuality wasn't just about the fringe RCP, but take a look at Cuban law until quite recently. And Stalin's USSR had quite a long period of a rightward shift via implementing conservative laws and the like.


That's true, but the same applies for most capitalist states on Earth. Most capitalist states even today still outlaws homosexuality. It's only a handful of states in the advanced capitalist West that have formally legalised it.



I'm not advocating Conservative Communism


I sure hope not, but I think one should be more than just "not advocating" certain forms of "conservative" communism (like you said, there isn't a singular definition of "conservative"), one should oppose them.



but I don't think it's in any way a contradiction. It's an important part of the history of the Left,


Things can have "historical importance" for either positive or negative reasons.



and whether most of us here agree with a lot of it or not, we should not try to just write it off as "reactionary" when instead we should be taking it seriously and trying to understand what it is more thoroughly


And of course for people like me who are not white heterosexual males, none of this is just a matter of "abstract debates" or some kind of "academic interest". It affects me personally in a very pragmatic and practical sense.

[HEAD ICE]

I always find it amusing when some Stalinist is waxing poetic on here about the destructive effect of drug abuse on working class communities as a justification for advocating brutal vigilante executions for drug dealers.

First it is obvious that all the feigned outrage over drug abuse is clearly fake and is a cover for the real reason, mainly violence fetishism mixed with an overactive imagination. They don't care about the harm that drugs can cause, they just want to administer some Paul Kersey kind of justice and fantasize about killing people.

I can say with good reason that none of these hardline anti-narco Stalinists give a shit about drug addicts because if they actually had experience with substance abuse in the working class they would realize that yes, hard drugs do cause incredible harm both to the user and the community, but I have never seen them (be it macho hard asses on the internet or ''Marxist'' gangsters in real life who actually do it) advocate summary executions of liquor store clerks or blowing up breweries. Alcoholism is far more prevalent, and for that reason far more destructive than hard narcotics. But strangely absent are the calls for (and the activity of) the hanging of convenience store clerks, brewers, and bartenders.

Yeah I know I know "the revolution is not a dinner party" blah blah vomit vomit. Your hardline anti-narco position is because you watched too many movies not because you care about the working class.

[KurtFF8]

I don't see how you could take any position other than an "anti-narco" one if you learned anything about the "drug war" as it's been developed in Mexico recently, but of course in the case of Colombia with the presence of the FARC-EP and their relationship to the narco-bourgeoisie should be a clear case of why we should oppose narco-capitalism. (And of course I would suggest the book by James J. Brittain (http://monthlyreview.org/author/jamesjbrittain)


And of course for people like me who are not white heterosexual males, none of this is just a matter of "abstract debates" or some kind of "academic interest". It affects me personally in a very pragmatic and practical sense.

I didn't mean to in any way imply I thought it was an abstract debate or just of academic interest. It's a matter of life and death for some folks, which makes it an important question for the Left. (And of course, abstract debates amongst actual organizing have real consequences)

[HEAD ICE]

I don't see how you could take any position other than an "anti-narco" one if you learned anything about the "drug war" as it's been developed in Mexico recently, but of course in the case of Colombia with the presence of the FARC-EP and their relationship to the narco-bourgeoisie should be a clear case of why we should oppose narco-capitalism. (And of course I would suggest the book by James J. Brittain (http://monthlyreview.org/author/jamesjbrittain)

I am an anti-narco I just don't use it as an excuse to entertain my violent fantasies.

[KurtFF8]

Well it's always silly to do such a thing, but the nature of narco trade is itself quite violent.

[black magick hustla]

He's dead serious. Look back over his posts. This is just a recent admission among many of reactionary politics. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this coming out of the remnants of DeLeonist sects in the U.S.

Advocating slave labor. How emancipatory and liberating! :rolleyes:
i once met an old deleonist, member of the defunct SLP. he was crazy and was a racist. i doubt all deleonists were like that too, but it seems to me deleonism was so insular that some of iots militants were unable to absorb some of the positive social value aspects of the 60s revolutions

[Ismail]

By 'anti-homosexual stuff' you mean, the illegality of homosexuality, and so Lenin did effectively legalize homosexuality (as Isuel said) as part of the 'First Family Code of 1918'.Homosexuality was tolerated, not legalized. Again, people weren't punished for being homosexual, but it was assumed that homosexuality would simply "go away" on its own, with "help" from the medical community. If either Lenin or Trotsky had supported explicit legalization for homosexuals they would have said so. As it stood, the interpretation was that no one was indeed a victim, but that homosexuals were still mentally "unwell." A popular idea in the 1920's to end homosexuality was to replace "homosexual" testicles with "heterosexual" testicles.


Of course, there were those within the Bolsheviks who had reactionary positions on homosexuality, but I think it's still clear as day that the position of Lenin and Trotsky was much less barbaric than that of Stalin, who personally made 8 years of hard labor the constitutional punishment for homosexuality, and who even condemned the Nazis as a movement lead by homosexuals.Again, there was a push towards that in the 1920's and 30's. Stalin didn't wake up one day and go "gee, I really don't like homosexuals." The German communists certainly didn't need Stalin's help in believing that a "homosexual cabal" laid behind the NSDAP leadership and Hitler Youth, as pretty ridiculous as that seems today.


De-criminalising homosexuality was a major step at the time. One needs to put it in its context. This was 1917. How many countries had legalised homosexuality at that time?Obviously none of them, although many within the Russian nobility were more or less able to be openly gay or bisexual by the early 1900's (which played into the socialist stereotype that many reactionaries were secret homosexuals.)

Now obviously what occurred in 1917 in relation to homosexual rights was progressive, and what occurred in the 1930's was a step back. For instance in Yezhov's interrogation he pretty much talked about how he was bisexual and how he conspired with other homosexuals (and the Polish intelligence service, and a German Nazi doctor) to destroy the USSR. Apparently during the "Doctors Plot" one of the arrested was interrogated and also was like "Ah yes, I too had homosexual relations with (insert) in order to destroy the working class" or something.

My point, though, was that the prospects of a more progressive policy towards homosexuals were quite limited when we take into account the backgrounds of most Bolsheviks and the views of the population at large.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No one has as yet mentioned that "Conservative Communism" is an ideal way to describe KPRF in Russia .KPRF is clearly socially conservative

Andrei Brezhnev, grandson of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev), has criticised the CPRF's abandonment of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) and Zyuganov's rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-18)

From Wikipedia

The RCWP-RPC isn't as socially conservative as the CPRF. It's social stance is more akin to Michael Lind's "Radical Center" in the US.

[Red Future]

The RCWP-RPC isn't as socially conservative as the CPRF. It's social stance is more akin to Michael Lind's "Radical Center" in the US.

I know..the RCWP is revolutionary unlike KPRF

[Jose Gracchus]

Another thing,


I say that anyone convicted of committing a violent act should at a minimum get forty years on a chain gang.

This is basically a death sentence. Death through labor. This guy was like...one of the really shitty foremen at Kolyma in his last lifetime.


Another thing is the refusal of the left to admit that the form of ethnic discrimination has changed in recent decades so that white males are frequently the victims. Much of the left is bogged down with an immature habit of contradiction - whatever mom and dad said, just say the opposite, and, on any international issue, you won't have to think when you can automatically blame "America".

Straight delusion.

[Savage]

Homosexuality was tolerated, not legalized. Again, people weren't punished for being homosexual, but it was assumed that homosexuality would simply "go away" on its own, with "help" from the medical community. If either Lenin or Trotsky had supported explicit legalization for homosexuals they would have said so. As it stood, the interpretation was that no one was indeed a victim, but that homosexuals were still mentally "unwell." A popular idea in the 1920's to end homosexuality was to replace "homosexual" testicles with "heterosexual" testicles.
It was legalized, that is a fact, whether Lenin and Trotsky were unrelenting crusaders for gay liberation is another question, (the answer to which is an obvious no). Lenin and Trotsky oversaw the abolition of repression against homosexuals, you haven't give me any evidence as of that that they themselves considered homosexuality to be something that would 'go away', even if that was a popular belief at the time.


Again, there was a push towards that in the 1920's and 30's. Stalin didn't wake up one day and go "gee, I really don't like homosexuals." The German communists certainly didn't need Stalin's help in believing that a "homosexual cabal" laid behind the NSDAP leadership and Hitler Youth, as pretty ridiculous as that seems today.
No he didn't wake up one day and do that, he obviously always believed it, and acted upon it as soon as he could, give me evidence to show that Lenin or Trotsky were considering making homosexuality punishable by 8 years hard labor (or something similar) in the 20's, I haven't seen anything to prove this as of yet.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Homosexuality was tolerated, not legalized.

"[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured and no one’s interests are encroached upon. Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality--Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." - Dr. Grigorii Batkis (director Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene), The Sexual Revolution in Russia, 1923. [Emphasis in original]

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't think there was some secret plot by Stalin to become leader and enact some "family values" legislation. Social forces shaped social policy. The reintroduction of reactionary social policies came along with real, underlying changes. It's no coincidence that abortion, homosexuality and prostitution were criminalized as the bureaucracy firmly secured its grip on power.

[Ismail]

Lenin and Trotsky oversaw the abolition of repression against homosexuals, you haven't give me any evidence as of that that they themselves considered homosexuality to be something that would 'go away', even if that was a popular belief at the time.Yes, and? We don't have any evidence that they had any particular views on homosexuality. As far as sex went, Lenin described himself as a "gloomy ascetic," denounced Kollontai's views on "free love" and also denounced those who "obsessed about sex." Trotsky wrote a 1937 letter talking about he'd like to perform cunnilingus on his wife, but that probably doesn't count.


give me evidence to show that Lenin or Trotsky were considering making homosexuality punishable by 8 years hard labor (or something similar) in the 20's, I haven't seen anything to prove this as of yet.Did Trotsky criticize the 1930's laws enacted against homosexuals? Stalin didn't write anything about how homosexuals deserved labor camps either (or about homosexuality in general), but obviously that doesn't mean he wasn't homophobic.


"[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured and no one’s interests are encroached upon. Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality--Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." - Dr. Grigorii Batkis (director Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene), The Sexual Revolution in Russia, 1923.Note how he says "treats these exactly" and it's described as "sexual gratification." It's subtly contrasted with "natural" intercourse.

Albanian legislation for instance said similar things: "Unnatural sexual relations of a man with a woman or of a woman with a woman do not constitute a criminal offence and are not proscribed." (E drejta penale e Republikës Popullore Socialiste të Shqipërisë, 1982, p. 338.)

In Sex and Russian Society (p. 91), it is noted that the premier promoter of "replace gay testicles with straight testicles" amongst his peers, Mark Sereisky, stated in 1930 that, "Soviet legislation does not recognise so-called crimes against morality.... While emphasising the importance of the causes that give rise to such an anomaly, our society combines therapeutic and sanitary measures with all the necessary conditions to enable homosexuals to live as trouble-free a life as possible and to resolve their problems of estrangement from society within the new collective."


It's no coincidence that abortion, homosexuality and prostitution were criminalized as the bureaucracy firmly secured its grip on power.The abortion debate was decided after discussions across the USSR and wasn't really based on morality, as noted by Sarah Davies in Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia. Lenin himself wasn't fond of prostitution, though he was certainly against hypocritical attacks (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jul/26.htm) on prostitutes by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois types.

[Savage]

Yes, and? We don't have any evidence that they had any particular views on homosexuality. As far as sex went, Lenin described himself as a "gloomy ascetic," denounced Kollontai's views on "free love" and also denounced those who "obsessed about sex." Trotsky wrote a 1937 letter talking about he'd like to perform cunnilingus on his wife, but that probably doesn't count.
Before you were implying that their views were no better than Stalin's, having no opinion of homosexuals is better than repressing them in my book.


Did Trotsky criticize the 1930's laws enacted against homosexuals? Stalin didn't write anything about how homosexuals deserved labor camps either (or about homosexuality in general), but obviously that doesn't mean he wasn't homophobic.
What? He didn't write anything about it? He made that a law in Article 121 of the 1936 constitution, I also believe he refereed to homosexuality as 'bourgeois'.


Note how he says "treats these exactly" and it's described as "sexual gratification." It's subtly contrasted with "natural" intercourse.
Dude, really...Before you were trying to argue that it wasn't legal, you we're proven wrong, I think you should admit that.

[Ismail]

Before you were implying that their views were no better than Stalin's, having no opinion of homosexuals is better than repressing them in my book.I was implying that neither Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky thought much about homosexuality. Same with Zinoviev, or Kamenev. Or Radek. Or any of them. Their views were all probably that it was "unnatural." Chicherin certainly didn't view his own homosexuality as natural (owing, obviously, to outside pressure.)


What? He didn't write anything about it? He made that a law in Article 121 of the 1936 constitution,According to J. Arch Getty (in "State and Society Under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s"), Bukharin (who as Getty noted wasn't that active in drafting the constitution) headed the sub-commission on law and Vyshinsky on legal affairs. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

The issue, according to what I see, is that you've miscited. Article 121 apparently reads as follows (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap13):

Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native Ianguage, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.
I also believe he refereed to homosexuality as 'bourgeois'.Stalin apparently received a letter by a homosexual British leftist questioning Stalin on anti-homosexual legislation in 1934, with Stalin writing on the letter that its sender was "an idiot and a degenerate" and sent it to the archives without a reply. (Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia, p. 189.) The author of the book which notes this states that, in his opinion, Stalin told Gorky to write his infamous "Proletarian Humanism" article in response. As noted in Contending With Stalinism (pp. 157-158) in an article by the same author, this incident "acquainted him with an unfamiliar current in European left sexual politics, and because of its use of Marxist discourse, it undoubtedly influenced the few Soviet attempts to defend the legislation publicly."

So yeah, obviously Stalin was a homophobe, although he never commented publicly on homosexuality.


Dude, really...Before you were trying to argue that it wasn't legal, you we're proven wrong, I think you should admit that.It wasn't legal, at least not to my knowledge. It was tolerated, just as Albanian law tolerated lesbian relationships.

[Savage]

I was implying that neither Lenin or Trotsky thought much about homosexuality. Same with Zinoviev, or Kamenev. Or Radek. Or any of them. Their views were all probably that it was "unnatural." Chicherin certainly didn't view his own homosexuality as natural (owing, obviously, to outside pressure), and he headed foreign affairs.
Even if they didn't, they legalized it, this has been proven already throughout this thread, and that Stalin criminalized it once more.


The issue, according to what I see, is that you've miscited. Article 121 apparently reads as follows (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap13):
You're free to provide a source.
woops! wrong article, sorry, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Stalin criminalized homosexuality, and there is proof that he was explicitly homophobic. Stalin is said to have refereed to homosexuality as 'bourgeois decadence',

''Josef Stalin considered homosexuality to be a form of ‘bourgeois decadence’ alien to the working class, and his followers were hardly different.''-Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of sexual and gender dissent

''Stalin had intered homosexuals in camps, and he outlawed homosexuality in the Soviet Union in 1934, enacting particularly stiff penalties for male prostitution. Homosexuality was also explicitly associated with class, specifically the 'degeneracy of the fascist bourgeoisie'.''- Crimes Against the State, Crimes Against Persons

''Although in the Soviet Union homosexual acts were decriminalized in the immediate post-revolutionary period, this relatively tolerant climate changed with the rise of Stalin, who ordered mass arrests of homosexuals and viewed homosexuality as the production of bourgeois decadence.''- The Cold War persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government



It wasn't legal, at least not to my knowledge. It was tolerated, just as Albanian law tolerated lesbian relationships.
Dude, it was legal, get over it. You're supposed to be a 'Marxist-Leninist' not a 'Stalinist'.

[Ismail]

woops! wrong article, sorry, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Stalin criminalized homosexuality, and there is proof that he was explicitly homophobic. Stalin is said to have refereed to homosexuality as 'bourgeois decadence',Your quotes by themselves don't actually prove anything in-re Stalin unless you can actually cite Stalin directly saying "homosexuality is bourgeois decadence." It's largely irrelevant though, since it's obvious that Stalin was homophobic and it's very likely he held that homosexuality was a product of class-based societies. He also never once spoke in condemnation of the penal policies in relation to homosexuality (nor did Trotsky.) For what it's worth, "degeneracy of the fascist bourgeoisie" referred to a Soviet press campaign, Stalin never said those words.

Also it wasn't a case of the wrong article, it's the case of the wrong document. You're thinking of the penal code of the USSR.


Dude, it was legal, get over it. You're supposed to be a 'Marxist-Leninist' not a 'Stalinist'.It wasn't persecuted, but again the status of its legality would still be in dispute. It was never explicitly made legal.

Again, I've pointed out that homosexual tolerance in the 1920's was obviously a step up from repression in the 1930's. Whether homosexuality was legal or tolerated makes little difference since, unfortunately, an overwhelming amount of Soviet citizens viewed it as an aberration, and that is what mattered.

[Savage]

Your quotes by themselves don't actually prove anything in-re Stalin unless you can actually cite Stalin directly saying "homosexuality is bourgeois decadence." It's largely irrelevant though, since it's obvious that Stalin was homophobic and it's very likely he held that homosexuality was a product of class-based societies. He also never once spoke in condemnation of the penal policies in relation to homosexuality (nor did Trotsky.) For what it's worth, "degeneracy of the fascist bourgeoisie" referred to a Soviet press campaign, Stalin never said those words.
I believe they were paraphrasing Stalin, and I believe he defended the persecution of homosexuals in an interview with a Marxist magazine, but yes it's pretty irrelevant.


It wasn't persecuted, but again the status of its legality would still be in dispute. It was never explicitly made legal.
Well it definitely wasn't illegal, I don't really wanna bother going deep into the juridical semantics about the difference between 'legal' and 'de-criminalized'.


Again, I've pointed out that homosexual tolerance in the 1920's was obviously a step up from repression in the 1930's. Whether homosexuality was legal or tolerated makes little difference since, unfortunately, an overwhelming amount of Soviet citizens viewed it as an aberration, and that is what mattered.
Agreed, although most MLs tend to hide behind the excuse of 'Stalin was a victim of his homophobic epoch', rather than understanding that great steps forward were made, which were completely disregarded by Stalin.

[Qayin]

More Stalin this or that holy shit no wonder the US is so fucked we are busy arguing about this shit when we should be united

[Ismail]

I believe they were paraphrasing Stalin, and I believe he defended the persecution of homosexuals in an interview with a Marxist magazine,I'd like to see it if such does indeed exist (it's not in his Collected Works.)


Agreed, although most MLs tend to hide behind the excuse of 'Stalin was a victim of his homophobic epoch', rather than understanding that great steps forward were made, which were completely disregarded by Stalin.Can't both be the case? There weren't many openly homosexual proletarians or peasants walking around (it's still like that today), and homosexuals were seen as occupying a very tiny, specific niche within society in positions not really seen as working-class. I think it'd be interesting if in the future some researcher studied debates on homosexuality in the USSR in the 1920's and 30's by taking advantage of archival research. I'm sure more than a few discussions saw Soviet Communists defending their homophobia using quasi-Marxist arguments. I'd also wonder how much of the debate was centered on a reaction to the rise of Fascism, which was, again, seen as being somehow led by homosexuals.

[Qayin]

Stalin - How he matters in the 21st century USA.

Oh wait he doesn't. Homophobia is bad, Stalin is dead. What are we going to do?

[Savage]

I'd like to see it if such does indeed exist (it's not in his Collected Works.)
I've only heard the interview mentioned, I didn't actually try to search for it though. There was another case when someone wrote a Marxist critique of of the 30's soviet policy, which Stalin apparently just labeled as 'stupid' and 'degenerate', but I didn't bother actually looking for this either.


Can't both be the case?
Yes of course, but I would consider it important not to rely solely on the former rather than the later.

[El Chuncho]

I always find it amusing when some Stalinist is waxing poetic on here about the destructive effect of drug abuse on working class communities as a justification for advocating brutal vigilante executions for drug dealers.

Is that a reference to my post about the INLA? I wasn't advocating their methods, but I do agree with their stance against drug-dealing capitalists who want to make money off the backs of people suffering from drug abuse. I have nothing against marijuana (though the distributors usually distribute harder drugs like heroin too), alcohol or even cigarettes (very bad for the lungs), but why should we believe it is progressive to allow people to die of harmful substances like heroin?


First it is obvious that all the feigned outrage over drug abuse is clearly fake and is a cover for the real reason, mainly violence fetishism mixed with an overactive imagination.

Evidence? Sorry, your post is nonsense. There is no way you can know if it is fake or not. For all you know the vocal ''Stalinists'' could have suffered due to drug abuse, even had friends or family members die due to it.

In short, claiming that people are not sincere because you do not agree with them is an absurd thing to do.


They don't care about the harm that drugs can cause, they just want to administer some Paul Kersey kind of justice and fantasize about killing people.

Uh-huh. :rolleyes:


Alcoholism is far more prevalent, and for that reason far more destructive than hard narcotics.

It wouldn't wouldn't be if the hardcore narcotics fanboys have their way. If their vision of society is allowed to exist, hard narcotics would be more prevalent and destructive. There lies the rub.


Yeah I know I know "the revolution is not a dinner party" blah blah vomit vomit. Your hardline anti-narco position is because you watched too many movies not because you care about the working class.

...or they do not have a naive, drug-informed view of socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

although many within the Russian nobility were more or less able to be openly gay or bisexual by the early 1900's (which played into the socialist stereotype that many reactionaries were secret homosexuals.)

For instance in Yezhov's interrogation he pretty much talked about how he was bisexual and how he conspired with other homosexuals (and the Polish intelligence service, and a German Nazi doctor) to destroy the USSR. Apparently during the "Doctors Plot" one of the arrested was interrogated and also was like "Ah yes, I too had homosexual relations with (insert) in order to destroy the working class" or something.


There is some truth about "homosexuality among the feudal aristocracy" (though often in secret rather than openly and explicitly), but the idea that "homosexuality is fascist" is totally ridiculous if you consider the fact that the Nazi Germans actually sent homosexuals into concentration camps to be killed.

Just making a general factual point.

Personally I don't think Stalin was a hardcore homophobe, certain reactionary policies were introduced but they weren't his central consideration at the time. Stalin personally didn't care much for homosexuality one way or another, unlike Hitler, the conservative religious right in the US, or certain Islamists, who are hardcore homophobes.

[HEAD ICE]

Is that a reference to my post about the INLA? I wasn't advocating their methods, but I do agree with their stance against drug-dealing capitalists who want to make money off the backs of people suffering from drug abuse. I have nothing against marijuana (though the distributors usually distribute harder drugs like heroin too), alcohol or even cigarettes (very bad for the lungs), but why should we believe it is progressive to allow people to die of harmful substances like heroin?



Evidence? Sorry, your post is nonsense. There is no way you can know if it is fake or not. For all you know the vocal ''Stalinists'' could have suffered due to drug abuse, even had friends or family members die due to it.

In short, claiming that people are not sincere because you do not agree with them is an absurd thing to do.



Uh-huh. :rolleyes:



It wouldn't wouldn't be if the hardcore narcotics fanboys have their way. If their vision of society is allowed to exist, hard narcotics would be more prevalent and destructive. There lies the rub.



...or they do not have a naive, drug-informed view of socialism.

yeah you really didnt say anything here at all really. if you bothered to read my post you would realize it is not anti-narcotic position I am against but the barbarian vigilante response that only the most thuggish cop could love that I am against.

and yes, i stand by my claim that they are not sincere. I mean you said it yourself. Oh yeah lets give the rope to dope dealers but not the liquor store clerk because i like to drink alcohol. I will say it again alcoholism is far more destructive than abuse of hard drugs. Separating your rage from the illegal to the legal drugs, proud peddler of capitalist logic.

[El Chuncho]

yeah you really didnt say anything here at all really. if you bothered to read my post you would realize it is not anti-narcotic position I am against but the barbarian vigilante response that only the most thuggish cop could love that I am against.

I did hence you have replied to my points. Anyway, your position is pretty weak because you are just attacking ''Stalinist'' strawmen.


and yes, i stand by my claim that they are not sincere. I mean you said it yourself. Oh yeah lets give the rope to dope dealers but not the liquor store clerk because i like to drink alcohol. I will say it again alcoholism is far more destructive than abuse of hard drugs. Separating your rage from the illegal to the legal drugs, proud peddler of capitalist logic.

When did I say it? I just mentioned the INLA who hang drug-dealers. I fail to see how I posted evidence that they are insincere for doing so. :rolleyes:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Note: there's no real point in trying to debate with Ismail. He's a revisionist (in the real meaning of the word). His mode of operation is to pick and choose out quotes and bits of information that may be bent to lend some credence to his arguments. If he's called on anything, he simply wrangles around, twisting the argument or playing games and dragging things out until the other person tires out or he is able to obscure things to the point where he's satisfied that he hasn't been made a fool of.

[Ismail]

There was another case when someone wrote a Marxist critique of of the 30's soviet policy, which Stalin apparently just labeled as 'stupid' and 'degenerate', but I didn't bother actually looking for this either.Good thing I actually did note that (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2089711&postcount=76) in a post of mine. In a reply to you, at that.


Note: there's no real point in trying to debate with Ismail. He's a revisionist (in the real meaning of the word).Yeah, the modern-day David Irving I am. :rolleyes:

Except I showed evidence that Stalin was, in fact, homophobic. In fact I don't see what I'm even defending. I said that the Soviets decriminalized and thus tolerated homosexuality rather than legalizing it. If I was interested in defending "Stalinism" I'd be like "whereas in Albania, lesbians enjoyed true legality" or something, which certainly wasn't the case either as they were also just tolerated in such an instance.


There is some truth about "homosexuality among the feudal aristocracy" (though often in secret rather than openly and explicitly), but the idea that "homosexuality is fascist" is totally ridiculous if you consider the fact that the Nazi Germans actually sent homosexuals into concentration camps to be killed.

Just making a general factual point.It's ridiculous to us now, yeah, but back then plenty of Communists held such views. The stupid, right-wing book The Pink Swastika is said to have gotten more than a few sources from 1930's and 40's Communists who talked about how the Nazis were all secret homosexuals who hated women and oppressed the proletariat with their sadomasochism or something.

In the USSR homosexuality was also seen as a road towards "sabotage." For instance in the Yezhov interrogations (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/ezhovinterrogs.html) homosexuality comes up a fair bit:

Question: Why did you fix your choice as terrorists precisely upon Dement’ev and Konstantinov?

Answer: In addition to my long personal friendship with Konstantinov and Dement’ev, I was tied to them by physical propinquity. As I have already communicated in my declaration in the name of the investigation, I was tied to Konstantinov and Dement’ev by depraved relations, i.e. homosexuality.It's ridiculous to a modern society that knows homosexuals are born rather than they somehow consciously choosing to be homosexuals. If you read conservative websites or blogs, many conservatives share similar views (just replace "fascist" with "communist") and how homosexuals want to infiltrate the U.S. military and other nonsense.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's ridiculous to a modern society that knows homosexuals are born rather than they somehow consciously choosing to be homosexuals.


I don't think that's the key point here though. Even if some people (hypothetically) actually do really "choose" to be gay, it still doesn't mean it's right to label them as "Nazis" or something.

So it's much more than just our increased scientific understanding of homosexuality etc, the fact that they are much more accepted now (in some countries at least) is also due to changing attitudes in the social and cultural sense.

[Savage]

Good thing I actually did note that (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2089711&postcount=76) in a post of mine. In a reply to you, at that.
Yes I forgot that you sent me that, I actually don't think that's such great evidence of his homophobia though, as he seemed to ridicule a lot of his criticizers in a similar way.

[Queercommie Girl]

Another point:

Obviously it's wrong for scientists and doctors in the early Soviet years to consider homosexuality as a mental illness, but I'd say objectively that's still much better than how the religious right in both Christianity and Islam view homosexuality. At least mentally ill people are still supposed to be cared for by public healthcare, (mentally ill implies these people can't help themselves and need to be helped, they are not "morally deficient" or subjectively blamed) whereas the religious right even today literally consider homosexuality as a "moral sin" call for homosexuals to be executed or stoned to death, or some similar kind of vile barbarism.

[mikelepore]

He's dead serious. Look back over his posts. This is just a recent admission among many of reactionary politics. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this coming out of the remnants of DeLeonist sects in the U.S.

That's a good example of what I was talking about -- that habit of many people on the left to determine what they believe, not by comparing the strengths of arguments for and against, but by applying modules and labels, such as what sounds "reactionary."


Advocating slave labor. How emancipatory and liberating! :rolleyes:

Yes, the 13th amendment to the U.S. constitution was very emancipatory and liberating: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist...."