Homosexuality and Communism

[khlib]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin? Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement? I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

[Mind_Zenith]

Stalin actually implemented a lot of socially conservative (or what might be considered conservative by modern meanings) policies: apart from outlawing homosexuality to some extent (I'm not sure whether he outlawed private acts or not), I can also remember reading about how he made divorce difficult to attain compared to pre-Stalin Leninist policies. I think that was just the society he came from; modern Marxist-Leninist, some of whom look up to Stalin without being exactly Stalinist, are accepting of LGBTI people, and it's rare to find a homophobe among their ranks. But, of course, there are homophobes in EVERY political group (I'd say far less in the socialist left, but that's me).

I would also say that some Socialists downplay "queer" identity politics because they believe the issues facing LGBTI people can be fixed by ridding/reforming Capitalism. I come from a totally different perspective, where short term reforms help revolution to come about; but it's undeniable that many socialists don't see short-term reforms as useful. At the same time, there could be some socialists who just don't like gay people; that might have to be an unfortunate reality the Comrades will have to face. But, in my experience, I really haven't found any of the sort. Obviously you have though, and that's not a good thing at all.

[Veovis]

From what I read, the party line was that it was indicative of "bourgeois decadence."

[DaringMehring]

The shameful Stalinist attacks on homosexuality (that it was bourgeois, that fascism was interlinked with homosexuality), derive ultimately from the backward conditions of the Stalinist countries. Combined with slavish submission to the Party line in the more advanced countries, and the result was people being kicked out of various CPs for being gay. I know one person from the CPUSA who told me how he used to be part of comissions in the 70s that investigated a suspect member's sexuality and then ousted them if they were in fact gay.

This can be contrasted to the earlier post-revolutionary Bolshevik position on homosexuality which was remarkably tolerant and modern, for a backward country in 1920. But ideology can only survive so long in the face of overwhelming social and material force.

But today, I think every sane socialist recognizes the fight for homosexual equality is part of the fight for equality for all people, as it always has been.

[AnonymousOne]

but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

That's because they aren't, they're one and the same. I'll quote myself from the Che thread:


You don't believe that LGBTQ+ rights are important to revolutionary struggle. Here's the thing, the capitalist class must continue to divide the working class in order to maintain a system where 1% own more than the bottom 90%. They use discrimination and hatred as a way to distract the population from the crisis of their system. In 2004, Bush and the Republicans used gay marriage as an issue to divert people’s attention away from the wars abroad and the harshness of life facing the working class here.

The middle class leadership of the LGBT political organizations put all their focus on the struggle for democratic rights. LGBT workers and youth need to see that the real struggle for genuine and full equality can only truly be won as part of a united working class movement, with the slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all!”

That's why Queer Rights matter. Because the working class needs to unite, and we can't have a united working class if we divide ourselves by sexuality, race, religion, w/e.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Homosexuality was banned in Cuba and SU because the ruling classes of those states did not care about the welfare or interests of the people, they just wanted to secure their own position of power

Which modern leftists are against the gay rights struggle? Obama? Bourgeois liberals are not modern leftists
Everyone who is against the LBGTQ struggle is just attempting to create another dimension of "us vs them"

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?Restrictions on homosexuality were tossed out during the Russian Revolution but the USSR rulers later re-instated attacks on homosexuality - much for the same reasons other capitalist regimes do so - to scapegoat and threaten people and promote conformity to social norms that suit the needs of the status quo. Specifically critics of the party were labeled as homosexuals much like in the McCarthy era in the US. Also hostility to homosexuality was part of a larger push to promote the nuclear family and increase child-birth. Young women birthing the next generation of toilers was patriotic, so anything else obviously was not patriotic.


Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement?Are they? I know of some and that's too many, but on the whole modern leftists played a big part of the gay lib movement and many of the movements of the 1970s. There are some though and the RCP until recently said that homosexuality was "bourgoise decadence" but leftists in the US also created some of the first political groups dedicated to LGBT rights even in the time before Stonewall.

Personally I think that the leftists who support or supported so-called communist countries which implemented anti-gay policies and found political justifications for their policies are often the ones who then took these bad political ideas and applied them domestically.


I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.They're not, they're deeply connected. I disagree with identity politics as a viable strategy for liberation, but I also disagree with some of the crude class-reductionism of some Marxists and anarchists that suggest that we have to wait until capitalism is destroyed before oppression can also be destroyed. IMO, lgbt-liberation, women's-liberation, black-lib etc are ALL class struggles ultimately and so if someone fights for lgbt-lib but not against the current organization of society (i.e. capitalism) then they will ultimately not be able to achieve liberation. But if people try and promote a united working class rule of society, but there is inequality and unaddressed divisions among working class people (i.e. racism, sexism, etc) then worker's won't be able to win liberation.

[jake williams]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?
I think it's a fairly complicated combination of factors and I think it's really stupid (not naming names) to try to talk about it in some simplistic way.

One of the major reasons has to do with the fact that it's common, not to say excusable, that societies facing war, especially when it entails killing millions of people and millions of young people in particular, often respond by trying to shore up the family as a reproductive unit. We need babies (for public labour, and to look after our suffering families); we need them raised in healthy, stable families; we need to defend the heterosexual family as an institution. It's the wrong perspective for those, along with other socialist or semi-socialist states to take, but there's a reason that perspective was taken then, and not before, and why it was corrected after. The horrors exacted upon Eastern Europe by the Nazis are difficult to explain or comprehend. That the population would retreat into the safety of the "traditional family" shouldn't be surprising, even if we're more than right to disagree with it now, and even to condemn the fact that they took that position then.

I also think it probably represents some more general subjective failures in the democratization of Soviet society and the marginalization of reactionary views: religious, racist, nationalist, sexist and homophobic. All of which we see today in Russia and other former Soviet states, often in part coming from the remnants of the socialist parties. These tendencies exist in all societies and it takes time, and effort, to get rid of them. We need to fight them at all times, whenever we deal with them in our own lives, organizations and societies, but in retrospect we shouldn't be shocked that they were not totally overcome instantly.

For most of its history the Soviet Union (including, arguably, while homosexuality was being banned) and its socialist allies had much more progressive positions on gender and sexuality than did the advanced capitalist countries (or any others). These were still societies where, generally speaking, women had civil and economic rights that simply did not exist elsewhere. Reactionary policies like banning homosexuality are utterly reprehensible and were unacceptable then as they are today, but we shouldn't talk about this out of historical context, as if it somehow comes to us as a shock that a political leadership born in the 19th century has more conservative views about gender and family than we do today.


Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement?
I think there's two categories of people you could be talking about which are very different and need to be regarded as such.

First, there are a lot of outright homophobes, whether they actually find homosexuality reprehensible or whether they simply wish queer activism marginalized from political struggle. Whatever its form, this sort of politics is absolutely reprehensible and needs to be fought. I also think, however, while it's common in much of the world. it's pretty rare in Western Europe or North America (I can't speak to Japan), including on this forum. (This last point is largely from personal experience but I think it's generally true, if for complicated reasons.)

What I think you'll see more often is an objection to the political and class character of the mainstream gay rights movements; not the actual existence of gay rights movements themselves. It's not wrong that increasingly gay politics has been deradicalized, and the right wing is actively trying to depoliticize the movement, regularly winning disturbing victories. The movement we have today simply isn't the movement behind Stonewall, for a lot of reasons we could go into if you'd like. But the fact remains that the visible mainstream of the gay rights movement is liberal and reformist at best, anti-political and even reactionary at worst.

Homophobia (and more broadly, heteronormativity and enforcement of traditional gender, sexuality and family) is a very real problem for ourselves, our societies and our class, and needs to be fought. The struggle for gay rights needs to be a part of our movement. Those elements of the gay rights movement which try to attack us our depoliticize the movement need to be fought too, but those parts which use the struggle for gay rights as one part of an advance to better society - and they do exist - need to be supported and strengthened.

[Salabra]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin? Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement? I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

Engels’ whole discussion of sexuality assumes that heterosexuality is not only the ‘norm’ but ‘normal’ — he waxes eloquent on the “abominable practice of sodomy.”

Many modern leftists copy Stalin in regarding homosexuality as “bourgeois decadence,” while those who tail petty-bourgeois ‘anti-imperialist’ movements (particularly those based on religion) despise it as ‘Western,’ ‘imperialist’ or going against the will of somebody’s invisible friend.

And many leftists are suspicious of LGBT politics, if, like traditional feminism, they attempt to unite ‘queer’ folk across class lines. Fortunately it is possible to be both socialist-feminist and socialist-gay.


The horrors exacted upon Eastern Europe by the Nazis are difficult to explain or comprehend. That the population would retreat into the safety of the "traditional family" shouldn't be surprising

I think you’ll find that the criminalization of homosexuality, like the bans on abortion and divorce, came before WWII. Interestingly, like Moses, Stalin only criminalized male homosexuality.


Homophobia (and more broadly, heteronormativity and enforcement of traditional gender, sexuality and family) is a very real problem for ourselves, our societies and our class, and needs to be fought. The struggle for gay rights needs to be a part of our movement. Those elements of the gay rights movement which try to attack us our depoliticize the movement need to be fought too, but those parts which use the struggle for gay rights as one part of an advance to better society - and they do exist - need to be supported and strengthened.

Well said (with the qualification mentioned above).

[RED DAVE]

I think it's a fairly complicated combination of factors and I think it's really stupid (not naming names) to try to talk about it in some simplistic way.Here comes the apologetics.


One of the major reasons has to do with the fact that it's common, not to say excusable, that societies facing war, especially when it entails killing millions of people and millions of young people in particular, often respond by trying to shore up the family as a reproductive unit.Reactionary swill. Also, at the time that Stalin and his ilk reinstated recriminalized homosexuality, the USSR was not facing war. So knock off the bullshit.


We need babies (for public labour, and to look after our suffering families); we need them raised in healthy, stable families; we need to defend the heterosexual family as an institution.Reactionary swill. This was part of the Stalinist line in the 1930s. It was eerily similar to that of the nazis.


It's the wrong perspective for those, along with other socialist or semi-socialist states to take, but there's a reason that perspective was taken then, and not before, and why it was corrected after.Yes, there was a reason. The reason was that promulgating hatred and fear of homosexuality is part of a general process of promulgating hatred and fear of freedom. Stalin and his ilk were in the process of liquidating the world's first (though severely troubled) workers state. What better tools than hatred and fear.


The horrors exacted upon Eastern Europe by the Nazis are difficult to explain or comprehend. That the population would retreat into the safety of the "traditional family" shouldn't be surprising, even if we're more than right to disagree with it now, and even to condemn the fact that they took that position then.Sheer unadulterated bullshit and apologetics for Stalinism. The laws against homosexuality were instituted about 11 years before WWII.


I also think it probably represents some more general subjective failures in the democratization of Soviet society and the marginalization of reactionary views: religious, racist, nationalist, sexist and homophobic.Do you know what "marginalization means"? It means some like "pushing to the margin" or "minimalizing." This wasn't the marginalization of reactionary views: this was the creation and propagation of reactions views.


All of which we see today in Russia and other former Soviet states, often in part coming from the remnants of the socialist parties.The proud legacy of Stalinism.


These tendencies exist in all societies and it takes time, and effort, to get rid of them.And the Bolsheviks made a great start until the institution of Stalinism.


We need to fight them at all times, whenever we deal with them in our own lives, organizations and societies, but in retrospect we shouldn't be shocked that they were not totally overcome instantly.No one is talking about overcoming instantly. We are talking about conscious and deliberate reactionary politics by a so-called Marxist tendency that had every reason to know better.


For most of its history the Soviet Union (including, arguably, while homosexuality was being banned) and its socialist allies had much more progressive positions on gender and sexuality than did the advanced capitalist countries (or any others).First of all, it was a mixed bag. Second of all, this makes their stance on homosexuality even less excusable.


These were still societies where, generally speaking, women had civil and economic rights that simply did not exist elsewhere. Reactionary policies like banning homosexuality are utterly reprehensible and were unacceptable then as they are todayOkay.



butHere comes the apologetic bullshit.


we shouldn't talk about this out of historical context, as if it somehow comes to us as a shock that a political leadership born in the 19th century has more conservative views about gender and family than we do today.Why not? These were Bolsheviks: the most advanced political tendency in the world. The people who led the Russian Revolution and who abolished laws against homosexuality. It should come as a terrible shock that this policy was reversed.


I think there's two categories of people you could be talking about which are very different and need to be regarded as such.Here comes more bullshit.


First, there are a lot of outright homophobes, whether they actually find homosexuality reprehensible or whether they simply wish queer activism marginalized from political struggle. Whatever its form, this sort of politics is absolutely reprehensible and needs to be fought. I also think, however, while it's common in much of the world. it's pretty rare in Western Europe or North America (I can't speak to Japan), including on this forum. (This last point is largely from personal experience but I think it's generally true, if for complicated reasons.)Okay.


What I think you'll see more often is an objection to the political and class character of the mainstream gay rights movements; not the actual existence of gay rights movements themselves. It's not wrong that increasingly gay politics has been deradicalized, and the right wing is actively trying to depoliticize the movement, regularly winning disturbing victories. The movement we have today simply isn't the movement behind Stonewall, for a lot of reasons we could go into if you'd like. But the fact remains that the visible mainstream of the gay rights movement is liberal and reformist at best, anti-political and even reactionary at worst.Blowing smoke. No one is arguing about this. The issue is the actions of the Stalinists against homosexuals in the USSR.


Homophobia (and more broadly, heteronormativity and enforcement of traditional gender, sexuality and family) is a very real problem for ourselves, our societies and our class, and needs to be fought. The struggle for gay rights needs to be a part of our movement. Those elements of the gay rights movement which try to attack us our depoliticize the movement need to be fought too, but those parts which use the struggle for gay rights as one part of an advance to better society - and they do exist - need to be supported and strengthened.Yeah. Yeah. But what about what the Stalinists did, which is the real issue. You can twist and turn all you want, but you can't get away from history.

RED DAVE

[Aurora]

Trotskyists generally consider the banning of homosexuality to be part of a wider degeneration of the gains of the revolution, often called thermidor after the similar phase in the french revolution where the most radical gains where rolled back, it's no coincidence that homosexuality and abortion were banned and divorce was made much more difficult at the same time the old Bolsheviks were being executed en masse.
Without the revolution spreading and the economic and cultural level of Russia being increased massively under the democratic control of the working class it was inevitable that the revolution would stagnate and fall back to the then capitalist norms of family.

Almost all communists today are entirely supportive of the gay rights movement, off the top of my head i can't think of a group that isn't in the most advanced capitalist countries, in the less developed countries there is more of a problem which seems to be mainly around the old moscow affiliated parties and their splinters.

About identity politics, in general communists view racism, sexism and homophobia as institutions that are useful in some shape or form to capitalism, lowering wages, waging war, turning worker against worker etc so naturally the complete elimination of these problems lies in uniting workers as workers to overthrow capitalism. This doesn't mean that we don't fight for reforms, on the contrary fighting for gay rights is incredibly important because it breaks down the barriers that are placed between us. But i don't have any illusions that homophobia can be reformed out of capitalism any more than private property or wages can.

[jake williams]

I think you’ll find that the criminalization of homosexuality, like the bans on abortion and divorce, came before WWII.
For what it's worth I'd written that in the context of having read about family/gender policy in the GDR. Regarding the laws brought in in the 30s, not that the SU was at peace, but yeah, for obvious reasons they weren't brought in response to World War II. What I think we do have to be able to explain however is why the laws remained for some time. I find explanations that Stalin personally reached from beyond the grave to try to make people suffer unconvincing. I think the reasoning I suggested is problematic (to say the least), but I'd be surprised if it wasn't a big part of the actual reasoning used by the people who maintained and implemented a broad set of policies of which banning homosexuality was only one part.

RD: I'm not trying to deny that there were specific instances where homophobia was used as a political weapon in factional fights and where that happened it's utterly repugnant, not to say that there are cases of acceptable homophobia. My point is that there is a broad set of backward policies relating to gender, sexuality and family life and to try to separate out gay marriage in particular is a very limited way to look at things, as is blaming everything personally on Stalin.


Blowing smoke. No one is arguing about this. The issue is the actions of the Stalinists against homosexuals in the USSR.

...

Yeah. Yeah. But what about what the Stalinists did, which is the real issue. You can twist and turn all you want, but you can't get away from history.
Well no actually, there were two questions, one about history and one about the general situation today of the relationship between the left today in general and the gay rights movement. The latter has virtually nothing to do with Stalin. I can't say I don't think that if you actually had something useful to say about history or politics you'd find a bit better explanations for major historical problems than Stalin's personal evilness.

[Nox]

I think I also said this on a thread asking a similar question,

My guess is that it was a conditional decision made by Stalin to help increase the size of the workforce needed to support the industrialisation.

Also I agree with jammoe that it may have been a pre-war choice because Stalin knew that the rise of fascism in Germany meant that shit was going to hit the fan (war was inevitable).

I do not agree with his choice, it was not worth it for the tiny difference it would have made.

[HEAD ICE]

It should be noted that the repeal and legalization (not mere 'decriminalization') of same-sex relations in pre-Stalinist USSR was a deliberate and conscious decision of the Soviet state. Many Marxist revisionists (Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists) say that same sex activity was legal only by the virtue of the total tossing away of Napoleonic law. If you search this topic on RevLeft you can see this argument being forwarded, along with the nudge-nudge-wink-wink undertones that homosexuality is a 'western issue.'

Laws against sodomy and same sex relations were done away with by the doing away with Napoleonic law. But it was also conscious policy on the part of the Russia. The USSR Commissar of Health, N.A. Semashko and other Bolsheviks visited advocates of legalization of homosexuality in Berlin and spoke in favor of it on behalf of Russia. I don't have any direct quotes or sources but a google search should give you enough.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"[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]

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.

[North Star]

Stalinists don't hold a monopoly on anti-gay sentiment in the socialist movement. Orthodox Trotskyist movements like Militant were also dismissive of gay rights, and I think it was only in the 1990's that both the CWI and IMT changed its line under pressure from its young rank and file. I know for a fact that there are still IMT leaders that are dismissive of gays.

[RED DAVE]

RD: I'm not trying to deny that there were specific instances where homophobia was used as a political weapon in factional fights and where that happened it's utterly repugnant, not to say that there are cases of acceptable homophobia. My point is that there is a broad set of backward policies relating to gender, sexuality and family life and to try to separate out gay marriage in particular is a very limited way to look at things, as is blaming everything personally on Stalin.I only separate it out because that's what this thread is all about. Yes, the generally reactionary nature of Stalinism on the teneral issues of "gender, sexuality and family life" are clear as a whole, with their stance on homosexuality being one good example of this.


Well no actually, there were two questions, one about history and one about the general situation today of the relationship between the left today in general and the gay rights movement.With regard to the present, the Left, by and large, has got its act together with regard to the gay rights issue and the gay movement.


The latter has virtually nothing to do with Stalin. I can't say I don't think that if you actually had something useful to say about history or politics you'd find a bit better explanations for major historical problems than Stalin's personal evilness.Comrade, I did not write about Stalin. I wrote about Stalinism.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Stalinists don't hold a monopoly on anti-gay sentiment in the socialist movement. Orthodox Trotskyist movements like Militant were also dismissive of gay rights, and I think it was only in the 1990's that both the CWI and IMT changed its line under pressure from its young rank and file. I know for a fact that there are still IMT leaders that are dismissive of gays.

Absolutely.

So what does that mean? Does that mean they should be forgiven or receive the same amount of scorn?

Also remember that "Leninism" in all its varieties is not the be all and end all of opposition to capitalism.

[North Star]

Absolutely.

So what does that mean? Does that mean they should be forgiven or receive the same amount of scorn?

Also remember that "Leninism" in all its varieties is not the be all and end all of opposition to capitalism.

Well it means a number of things. First revolutionaries need examine if their line enables liberation from all forms of oppression, not just the rule of capital. Second it shows a weakness in "Leninist" movements. Though I feel the Stalinist response was due to social conservatism and wishing to promote population growth, I think the homophobia of Trotskyist groups comes from the workerism of some of them. CWI/IMT are certainly workerist. I'm not sure what Trotsky has said about homosexuality so maybe it comes from him. If that's the case it's certainly something to remember next time someone claims "If only Trotsky had led the USSR..." Beyond "Leninism" there's been Bakunin's antisemitism and Proudhon's support for the traditional families. These things in themselves do not negate anarchism or prove it to be faulty but shows that revolutionaries of all types must be critically studying all relationships in society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All of that would be well and fine if the October Revolution hadn't declared all consensual sexual activity to be a private matter in 1917. Anyone coming after that has a real hard time calling their reactionary positions "a product of the time" or of "workerism" or whatever.

[Red_Struggle]

The Bolsheviks didn't care about sexual intercourse in the first place, and they thought that homosexuality would go away in due time due to socialist construction doing away with "bourgeois decadence". When this didn't happen, then came repression. Of course, it's important to take into account that homosexuality was viewed as a mental disorder for the greater half of the 20th century.

And before anyone accuses me of "Stalinist apologetics," I'm not apologizing for anything. It was wrong. MLs recognize this and are militantly pro-LBGT.

It's probably worth mentioning that Albania had a slightly more creative (although still flawed) view of homosexuality. Male-Male relationships were viewed as male chauvinism, but Female-Female relationships were seen as a response to years and years of feudal oppression towards women. Still, I've never read anything about homosexuals being prosecuted in Albania.

[HEAD ICE]

The Bolsheviks didn't care about sexual intercourse in the first place, and they thought that homosexuality would go away in due time due to socialist construction doing away with "bourgeois decadence". When this didn't happen, then came repression. Of course, it's important to take into account that homosexuality was viewed as a mental disorder for the greater half of the 20th century.

And before anyone accuses me of "Stalinist apologetics," I'm not apologizing for anything. It was wrong. MLs recognize this and are militantly pro-LBGT

This is Stalinist apologetics because it has already been established that it was official Bolshevik policy that same-sex intercourse was natural human behavior and that it is a private matter between consenting adults. I'm sure you can find some quotes from this or that Bolshevik saying something reactionary but it doesn't change the fact that Russia knowingly sent its Health Commissar to a gay rights organization who then spoke in favor of repeal of sodomy laws, and that same sex relations were natural. This argument that they were a "victim of their times" is first not even an excuse if it was true but factually incorrect. The Bolsheviks were the most progressive on the issue then and in many cases today, even amongst modern "Marxist-Leninist" groups.

[Red_Struggle]

it was official Bolshevik policy that same-sex intercourse was natural human behavior and that it is a private matter between consenting adults.

Yes, and it was expected it would peacefully go away with due time. This did not happen, obviously.


I'm sure you can find some quotes from this or that Bolshevik saying something reactionary

According to one hostile source, Lenin would criticize some of his opponents as "acting like a female". Might be more sexist than anything, but you get the picture. 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.


but it doesn't change the fact that Russia knowingly sent its Health Commissar to a gay rights organization

Which gay rights organization? If you mean the Society for Human Rights, it was only around for a few months before being shut down by police and government pressure.


This argument that they were a "victim of their times" is first not even an excuse if it was true but factually incorrect.

Except it's not incorrect. A lot of Soviet officials saw homosexuality as a "sickness" which socialism would peacefully get rid of. Hell, A popular idea in the 1920's to end homosexuality was to replace "homosexual" testicles with "heterosexual" testicles.


The Bolsheviks were the most progressive on the issue then and in many cases today, even amongst modern "Marxist-Leninist" groups.

Uhh, most if not all Marxist-Leninist parties are unhesitantly pro-LGBT. The CPRF (which is reformist/Dengist) is pretty homophobic, but I haven't heard of any other parties outside of them that are anti-gay.

For what it's worth, here's a propaganda poster produced by the PCMLE, showing the LGBT flag flying right next to the Ecuadorian flag and the PCMLE flag:

http://www.kaosenlared.net/img2/193/193141_PCMLE.JPG

[Veovis]

For what it's worth, here's a propaganda poster produced by the PCMLE, showing the LGBT flag flying right next to the Ecuadorian flag and the PCMLE flag:

In this context, the flag is mostly likely meant to be a symbol of the indigenous Andean peoples, rather than a symbol of gay pride.

[Crux]

Stalinists don't hold a monopoly on anti-gay sentiment in the socialist movement. Orthodox Trotskyist movements like Militant were also dismissive of gay rights, and I think it was only in the 1990's that both the CWI and IMT changed its line under pressure from its young rank and file. I know for a fact that there are still IMT leaders that are dismissive of gays.
I don't think an off comment from Ted Grant that lgbt-issues are petit-bourgeoisie, which is the only substantial thing I have found of such accusations in the past, is enough to tar both the CWI and IMT with some kind of anti-gay brush. The CWI was never anti-gay.

[HEAD ICE]

blah blah blah

Ok so you were able to write a lot without saying anything. Nothing you said goes against the fact that the repeal of sodomy laws was a conscious decision on the part of Soviet government. You are trying to argue something that has been dealt with pretty handidly earlier in the thread: that the reintroduction of the criminalization of homosexuality was a personal fault of Joseph Stalin for being a homophobe, because he lived in such a homophobic period.

And yes, a lot of ML groups and as mentioned earlier some Trotskyist groups reversed their positions because of internal pressure from young members.

[Crux]

some Trotskyist groups reversed their positions because of internal pressure from young members.
Although no one has been able to substantiate that the CWI supposedly held an anti-gay postion at some time in the past.

[Crux]

This might have been posted before. From Kasama: "Opening the red closet door….. then a demand to shut it"
(http://kasamaproject.org/2011/08/02/opening-the-red-closets-door-then-a-demand-to-shut-it/)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

What I think you'll see more often is an objection to the political and class character of the mainstream gay rights movements; not the actual existence of gay rights movements themselves. It's not wrong that increasingly gay politics has been deradicalized, and the right wing is actively trying to depoliticize the movement, regularly winning disturbing victories. The movement we have today simply isn't the movement behind Stonewall, for a lot of reasons we could go into if you'd like. But the fact remains that the visible mainstream of the gay rights movement is liberal and reformist at best, anti-political and even reactionary at worst.
First of all, a lot of the mainstream gay rights movement is often transphobic and usually centered around white affluent cisgendered gay men. Many mainstream gay rights groups and gay politicians threw the transgendered community under the bus selling transfolks down the river in exchange for their own acceptance in spite of the fact that transwomen started the Stonewall riots that gave the LGBT movement the momentum to give those gay mainstream politicians and organizations the clout to sell the transcommunity out. But none of that justifies Stalinists being homophobic assholes. All authoritarian forces, left or right, really want and care about one thing; Control, the more they can control, the more they crave power and invade more aspects of people's lives. First they invade our right to express our selves followed by our streets and corners where they post more men with guns to enforce their rules. Then they eliminate rivals followed by invading personal conversations with wire taps. Then they invade the bedroom and our pants finally dictating every aspect of your life and they own you. Everything except what goes on in your head unexpressed.

[Tim Finnegan]

First of all, a lot of the mainstream gay rights movement is often transphobic and usually centered around white affluent cisgendered gay men. Many mainstream gay rights groups and gay politicians threw the transgendered community under the bus selling transfolks down the river in exchange for their own acceptance in spite of the fact that transwomen started the Stonewall riots that gave the LGBT movement the momentum to give those gay mainstream politicians and organizations the clout to sell the transcommunity out.
Case in point, many of the official histories insist that those trans women were in fact gay men in drag, even when the women in question themselves have publicly asserted the reality of their identity.

[North Star]

I don't think an off comment from Ted Grant that lgbt-issues are petit-bourgeoisie, which is the only substantial thing I have found of such accusations in the past, is enough to tar both the CWI and IMT with some kind of anti-gay brush. The CWI was never anti-gay.

The Militant tradition was never anti-gay, but it was dismissive of LGBT liberation. I know this is the case more on the part of the IMT, and the CWI would have had to have shared this apathy prior to their split. Generally since the IMT holds on to their traditional line with more stubbornness than the CWI, this seems to be a problem there. I know of gay IMT members, it's not an issue but the organization was very slow to embrace gay liberation. They did celebrate the victory of gay marriage in NY on In Defense of Marxism, but just a few years earlier Alan Woods was writing about genetics and used the example of there being no genetic cause of homosexuality in the same sentence as saying there is no gene that causes criminality. Not explicitly homophobic by any means but a bad pairing of examples that I think stems from apathy towards homosexuals from those who have been in the leadership for decades. I had discussed with a comrade of mine who is a proud IMT'er and he pointed out the article on IDOM was showing how the IMT has admitted their mistakes and moved on. Well they never admitted a mistake and my comrade admitted that in the past they were backwards on the issue. The CWI today is certainly better than the IMT on the homosexual question for sure.

[Savage]

I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

Communism is the proletarian movement towards the abolition of the current social relation (capital), and thus all forms of oppression and discrimination against the proletariat by the bourgeoisie must and can only be abolished through the abolition of capitalist society as a whole, that is why ''identity politics'' as a program that is persued separately from our program as a class must be dismissed as it calls for the struggle against only particular phenomenons of bourgeois society (whilst rejecting our struggle as a whole against the condition of wage labour) which implies that certain peoples (such as homosexuals) can be liberated within capitalism and is hence reactionary.

I am sorry if you have already been given this response but I am not bothered to read this thread in full.

[Azula]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin? Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement? I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

Sadly, society was more conservative back then. Stalin was a product of his time and society too, and he might also have been affected by public opinion.

[Tim Finnegan]

Sadly, society was more conservative back then. Stalin was a product of his time and society too, and he might also have been affected by public opinion.

All of that would be well and fine if the October Revolution hadn't declared all consensual sexual activity to be a private matter in 1917. Anyone coming after that has a real hard time calling their reactionary positions "a product of the time" or of "workerism" or whatever.
So try again.

[Red_Struggle]

the reintroduction of the criminalization of homosexuality was a personal fault of Joseph Stalin.

According to J. Arch Getty (in "State and Society Under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s"), Bukharin (who wasn't that active in drafting the constitution) headed the sub-commission on law and Vyshinsky on legal affairs, so I find it hard to believe that the opinion of one man overruled all others. You guys are always trying to portray us MLs as adhering to the "great man" theory, as if Stalin was some omnipotent being that controled everything and everyone. But then that is EXACTLY how you yourselves protray him.

[black magick hustla]

According to J. Arch Getty (in "State and Society Under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s"), Bukharin (who wasn't that active in drafting the constitution) headed the sub-commission on law and Vyshinsky on legal affairs, so I find it hard to believe that the opinion of one man overruled all others. You guys are always trying to portray us MLs as adhering to the "great man" theory, as if Stalin was some omnipotent being that controled everything and everyone. But then that is EXACTLY how you yourselves protray him.

i think the point trying to be made is that anti-gay laws were product of stalinist thermidorean reaction not that stalin was personally responsable.

[Queercommie Girl]

Communism is the proletarian movement towards the abolition of the current social relation (capital), and thus all forms of oppression and discrimination against the proletariat by the bourgeoisie must and can only be abolished through the abolition of capitalist society as a whole, that is why ''identity politics'' as a program that is persued separately from our program as a class must be dismissed as it calls for the struggle against only particular phenomenons of bourgeois society (whilst rejecting our struggle as a whole against the condition of wage labour) which implies that certain peoples (such as homosexuals) can be liberated within capitalism and is hence reactionary.

I am sorry if you have already been given this response but I am not bothered to read this thread in full.


It doesn't mean limited "reformist" struggles in the here-and-now aren't important too. As Trotsky says in his transitional programme, both immediate economic (like trade unionism) and democratic struggles can play a progressive role.

I'm an entryist rather than an impossibilist. Another thing is that I do not think a socialist revolution will happen within my life-time, and I'm not willing to simply wait until I die for LGBT-phobia to disappear. Also I'm not a full-time professional revolutionary or a full-time member of a revolutionary party, so frankly communist politics does not take over my life. I have many other interests which frankly have little to do with socialism, LGBT activism/culture is one of them.

Having said this, I don't expect every socialist to be really active in LGBT politics. All I'm asking is that no-one discriminates against me or other LGBT people on the grounds of their sexuality or gender identity.

As a trans-woman I have experienced prejudices (though implicit rather than explicit) from within the revolutionary leftist camp, including on this forum itself. This has negatively affected the amount of contribution I could give to the socialist movement in general - which is a personal and concrete manifestation of the negative effects of "divide-and-rule".

[Born in the USSR]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?

The answer is simple : 90% of gays have not a congenital but an acquired homosexuality,that is why homosexual acts were persecuted,as in the whole world a deliberate contamination is persecuted. In the Russian tradition, like in traditions of many other peoples, homosexuality is considered a sexual perversion.

[Aurora]

The answer is simple : 90% of gays have not a congenital but an acquired homosexuality,that is why homosexual acts were persecuted,as in the whole world a deliberate contamination is persecuted. In the Russian tradition, like in traditions of many other peoples, homosexuality is considered a sexual perversion.

Out of curiosity what's the position of your party the Russian Communist Workers Party on homosexuality?

There's no conclusive evidence that sexuality is from birth rather than socially developed also whether sexuality is genetic or socially developed is irrelevant to how the socialist movement relates to gay rights, either way homosexuality is a natural part of human behaviour and society must come to reflect this.

You say that the Russian tradition considers homosexuality a sexual perversion, so what? Communists have never been bourgeois traditionalists and the fact that homosexuality was legal before Stalin shows how much of a non-argument this is.

Also i really hope you didn't just refer to homosexuality as 'a deliberate contamination'?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So try again.

Except a government policy change does not equate a change in public opinion and homophobia would presumably linger much longer even when the old tsarist-era laws had been done away with, especially if there was little done in the way of struggle against it and perceptions regarding it in the population. A government decree does not automatically stop homophobia, nor does a law; and if the government itself and popular opinion still remain partially ingrained with homophobic ideas, it is possible for such a corruption to return once more into the light from which it was previously banished.

Not to mention the Soviet government contained a lot more people than Stalin; is there any real documents pointing to Stalin's personal involvement with the reprehensible law changes in the 30's as opposed to a mistaken idea that had caught on in general within the government on several levels (possibly even to pander to vile politically conservative groups within society that remained, such as the church) that does not entail bizarre assumption of the all-powerful all-mighty Stalin-bogeyman that controls everything in the Soviet Union?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The answer is simple : 90% of gays have not a congenital but an acquired homosexuality,that is why homosexual acts were persecuted,as in the whole world a deliberate contamination is persecuted. In the Russian tradition, like in traditions of many other peoples, homosexuality is considered a sexual perversion.

Um, where do you get this from? There is no conclusive evidence for what proportion of people are "born" gay and how many "become" gay, and by what process one might undergo changes in their sexuality over their lifetime. Even if someone does "chose" it they should have the autonomous choice.

[Thirsty Crow]

The answer is simple : 90% of gays have not a congenital but an acquired homosexuality,that is why homosexual acts were persecuted,as in the whole world a deliberate contamination is persecuted. In the Russian tradition, like in traditions of many other peoples, homosexuality is considered a sexual perversion.

Oh, wow, I don't even know where to start.

First of all, how did you come up with that percentage? Present a source.

Second, I can't believe that a reactionary fuckwit such as yourself, who would deliberately use the term "deliberate contamination" with regard to homosexuality, lasted so long here.

And finally, fuck your Russian tradition, and while we're at it, fuck every single one of the "national" traditions for their reactionary attitudes.

Oh yeah, and fuck yourself too.

[AnonymousOne]

I know there are a lot of straight allies but sometimes I wonder if even they can understand how totally horrible and depressing it is to have your intimate life bandied around by asshole politicians like it's an abstract "issue" they have to "weigh in on." Like for some reason, Perry, Obama, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Castro, Mao and others have any right to outlaw or make some decision regarding whether or not my life is okay. Gay marriage, sodomy, all this nonsense. It's MY LIFE. It's the life I live every day with my wonderful boyfriend who makes me smile and laugh and feel happy to be alive. It's insane watching it be under a constant attack 24/7, and it's even crazier watching it be bandied around by a bunch of "communist" leaders.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Except a government policy change does not equate a change in public opinion and homophobia would presumably linger much longer even when the old tsarist-era laws had been done away with, especially if there was little done in the way of struggle against it and perceptions regarding it in the population. A government decree does not automatically stop homophobia, nor does a law; and if the government itself and popular opinion still remain partially ingrained with homophobic ideas, it is possible for such a corruption to return once more into the light from which it was previously banished.

Not to mention the Soviet government contained a lot more people than Stalin; is there any real documents pointing to Stalin's personal involvement with the reprehensible law changes in the 30's as opposed to a mistaken idea that had caught on in general within the government on several levels (possibly even to pander to vile politically conservative groups within society that remained, such as the church) that does not entail bizarre assumption of the all-powerful all-mighty Stalin-bogeyman that controls everything in the Soviet Union?
This made me think of a "Super Stalin" in tights and a cape. :laugh::laugh::laugh: All powerful and all mighty!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yes, and it was expected it would peacefully go away with due time. This did not happen, obviously.



According to one hostile source, Lenin would criticize some of his opponents as "acting like a female". Might be more sexist than anything, but you get the picture. 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.



Which gay rights organization? If you mean the Society for Human Rights, it was only around for a few months before being shut down by police and government pressure.



Except it's not incorrect. A lot of Soviet officials saw homosexuality as a "sickness" which socialism would peacefully get rid of. Hell, A popular idea in the 1920's to end homosexuality was to replace "homosexual" testicles with "heterosexual" testicles.



Uhh, most if not all Marxist-Leninist parties are unhesitantly pro-LGBT. The CPRF (which is reformist/Dengist) is pretty homophobic, but I haven't heard of any other parties outside of them that are anti-gay.

For what it's worth, here's a propaganda poster produced by the PCMLE, showing the LGBT flag flying right next to the Ecuadorian flag and the PCMLE flag:

http://www.kaosenlared.net/img2/193/193141_PCMLE.JPG
There is an extra color on that rainbow flag so it's not an LGBT flag. That lowest pink stripe isn't on the LGBT pride flag.

[Kronsteen]

Cwhy are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement? I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

Take feminism as an example. Some feminists regard all the problems of the world as stemming from patriarchy, male sexism against women, and macho culture.

They see the recession as a consequence of swaggering rich boys making money and taking stupid risks as a display of sexual dominance. Wars are blamed on men being incurably violent. Some even see pollution as a literal rape of the mother earth by masculine science.

The cure, in their view, is to tame men - making them ironically more like one of the sexist stereotypes of women.

Now, what's wrong with this picture? Don't socialists oppose mysogeny? Of course they do. The problem is that some feminists (by no means all) are treating one symptom of the disease as the the sole pathogen, and proposing the removal of that symptom as the whole cure.

The battle against homophobia (and to a lesser extent, against hatred of transsexuals) has made great advances in recent years. But has that reduced the number of wars in the world? Or domestic violence? At the same time as homophobia's been decreasing, racism's been vastly increasing.

The problem with identity politics is that it misidentifies the central problem, and so fights peripheral only battles. Sometimes it wins the battles - and loses the war.

Does this mean socialists shouldn't support gay rights? Of course not. You don't win the war by refusing to fight the battles.

[Kronsteen]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?

Under the tsar, there were hundreds of laws against almost every imaginable form of sexuality.

The bolsheviks, who were not exactly progressive on sexual matters, ripped most of them up - except those dealing with rape.

Stalin...put most of them back.


Engels’ whole discussion of sexuality assumes that heterosexuality is not only the ‘norm’ but ‘normal’ — he waxes eloquent on the “abominable practice of sodomy.”

This is true. And a good example of a time we should be unafraid to say:

"Engels was wrong. He didn't know anything about the subject, and didn't bother to do even a cursory examination of the available evidence. Just talking to some homosexuals would have corrected a lot of errors, but it didn't occur to him".


Many modern leftists copy Stalin in regarding homosexuality as “bourgeois decadence,” while those who tail petty-bourgeois ‘anti-imperialist’ I remember some of the more insane Stalinists in the 70s and 80s parroting that line, but I've not heard it recently. Such people might be 'anti-capitalist' but that doesn't make them 'pro-socialist'.


Orthodox Trotskyist movements like Militant were also dismissive of gay rights

I think 'dismissive' is exactly the right word.

In principle they held that 'after the revolution sexuality will be free so fighting for the revolution is fighting for sexual freedom'. In practice it was more like 'Sexual freedom is an unwarranted luxury - and also a bit icky.'


Yes, and it was expected it would peacefully go away with due time.

A cite would be useful on this. I recall nothing in bolshevik writings to this effect.


90% of gays have not a congenital but an acquired homosexuality

Just to be clear: Are you presenting that statement as an example of the cretinious things people said in early 20th century Russia?

Or are you one of those insane Stalin-worshippers I thought had virtually died out?

[Born in the USSR]

And finally, fuck your Russian tradition

Oh yeah, and fuck yourself too.

Hey,Admin,why do you allow such insulting?Is it a norm at this forum?

There was a quostien "why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?" and I answered why without any personnel comments,nevertheless a nervous guy accused me of homophobia.Here is some schizophrenic atmosphere.

[AnonymousOne]

Hey,Admin,why do you allow such insulting?Is it a norm at this forum?

There was a quostien "why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?" and I answered why without any personnel comments,nevertheless a nervous guy accused me of homophobia.Here is some schizophrenic atmosphere.

It's a norm when you act as an apologist for homophobic policies, your post read very much as a justification of why the homophobic and oppressive policies of the Soviet Union were justified by "Russian Tradition".

If that's not what you meant, fine, but you should clarify your views in that case.

[Agent Equality]

I am perfectly fine with LGBT people. It is their choice and no one else's to intrude upon. I will fight tooth and nail to make sure they are as equal as every one else and is treated the same.

I just think the problem that some leftists have with them is the fact that they are openly prideful(as in the parades and stuff). I understand that they probably don't do this because they have an overreaching sense of pride, but because they are trying to fight for equality and such and this is what they should be doing.

But it probably seems to some leftists (those who aren't actually anti-LGBT) that their pride in their sexuality is dangerously similar to someone's pride in say...their nation, or their religion. We all know how bad these things are and that they bring about divisions and inequalities.

LGBT can possibly be seen in that same light by some leftists, whether it is warrented or not. It is merely a possible (and probable) explanation. That or they are just homophobes :D

So while it is great that they are standing up for their rights, I think we need to watch and make sure that being accepting of who you are doesn't become so accepting that you start to see yourself in an over positive light and not accept others. Too often this happens with things like this. I'll tell you right now that if any LGBT pride ever goes too far and starts persecuting or shaming others as they have been shamed and persecuted, I will fight against them just as I would fight against any nationalist,religious fundamentalist, or any other group that seeks to exclude or divide others. The same goes for straight groups that try to persecute LGBTs.

I'm for total equality(political,economic,AND social), if my name did not give that away :)

[Savage]

The answer is simple : 90% of gays have not a congenital but an acquired homosexuality,that is why homosexual acts were persecuted,as in the whole world a deliberate contamination is persecuted. In the Russian tradition, like in traditions of many other peoples, homosexuality is considered a sexual perversion.

goodbye

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Hey,Admin,why do you allow such insulting?Is it a norm at this forum?
"Deliberate contamination" used in regards of homosexuality is insulting to the Gay folks on here.



Here is some schizophrenic atmosphere.
You complain about insulting and then in the same post make statement that are insulting to those who suffer from certain mental health issues. I happen to have friends who are schizophrenic and some of them are some of the most intelligent and caring people I know. Just as some of the best people I know are gay as well.

[Tim Finnegan]

There is an extra color on that rainbow flag so it's not an LGBT flag. That lowest pink stripe isn't on the LGBT pride flag.
Yeah, I think it's an indigenous flag, like the checked flag that you see indigenous Bolivians using. Rainbow-coloured flags of one sort or another are quite common as a symbol of indigenous Andean identity.

[jake williams]

First of all, a lot of the mainstream gay rights movement is often transphobic and usually centered around white affluent cisgendered gay men.
I agree, and it's partly what I said.


Many mainstream gay rights groups and gay politicians threw the transgendered community under the bus selling transfolks down the river in exchange for their own acceptance in spite of the fact that transwomen started the Stonewall riots that gave the LGBT movement the momentum to give those gay mainstream politicians and organizations the clout to sell the transcommunity out.
That's a fair enough point to make about the actual participants in the riots but I think the broader issues are a lot more complex. The point I was making is that the mainstream of the "new left" gay liberation movement that existed around and concurrent with the riots - whatever its major flaws and contradictions then as a mostly white, affluent urban movement, which it certainly was - was still a lot more radical than the movement that exists now, much as the feminist movement, as shitty as it was in the 70s in all sorts of ways, has been substantially deradicalized, and for similar reasons. Transphobia is certainly a part of it, but not mainly or mostly, and where it is it's mainly a consequence of other factors - the changing political and class character of identity-political movements, as they're reorganized into liberal "issue" movements or "special interest" movements.


But none of that justifies Stalinists being homophobic assholes.
No one is ever justified in being a homophobe and no one has actually suggested otherwise, despite whatever politically motivated distortions people want to come up with.


All authoritarian forces, left or right, really want and care about one thing; Control, the more they can control, the more they crave power and invade more aspects of people's lives. First they invade our right to express our selves followed by our streets and corners where they post more men with guns to enforce their rules. Then they eliminate rivals followed by invading personal conversations with wire taps. Then they invade the bedroom and our pants finally dictating every aspect of your life and they own you. Everything except what goes on in your head unexpressed.
Okay, Alex Jones. This sort of totally ahistorical, apolitical understanding of class society isn't going to get anybody anywhere except those who actually have an interest in undermining working class politics, which certainly doesn't include yourself.

[Tifosi]

There is an extra color on that rainbow flag so it's not an LGBT flag. That lowest pink stripe isn't on the LGBT pride flag.


Yeah, I think it's an indigenous flag, like the checked flag that you see indigenous Bolivians using. Rainbow-coloured flags of one sort or another are quite common as a symbol of indigenous Andean identity.



It's the Flag of Cusco (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Cusco).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I agree, and it's partly what I said.
Good even though I don't remember what you said and I wouldn't have remembered what I said if you hadn't quoted me since I don't even remember posting that. Lol looks like I was high as fuck but I digressed...


That's a fair enough point to make about the actual participants in the riots but I think the broader issues are a lot more complex. The point I was making is that the mainstream of the "new left" gay liberation movement that existed around and concurrent with the riots - whatever its major flaws and contradictions then as a mostly white, affluent urban movement, which it certainly was - was still a lot more radical than the movement that exists now, much as the feminist movement, as shitty as it was in the 70s in all sorts of ways, has been substantially deradicalized, and for similar reasons. Transphobia is certainly a part of it, but not mainly or mostly, and where it is it's mainly a consequence of other factors - the changing political and class character of identity-political movements, as they're reorganized into liberal "issue" movements or "special interest" movements.
Okay I agree with that.



No one is ever justified in being a homophobe and no one has actually suggested otherwise, despite whatever politically motivated distortions people want to come up with.
good I'm glad we agree.


Okay, Alex Jones. This sort of totally ahistorical, apolitical understanding of class society isn't going to get anybody anywhere except those who actually have an interest in undermining working class politics, which certainly doesn't include yourself.
No I am nothing like Alex Jones as he hates Anarchists too. And his following just freaks me out as they are usually creepy old men that for some reason give off bad creepy scary vibes.

[Molexira]

nice, friendly up !!good post, thanks for post, +1))))

[runequester]

Lenin had de-criminalized it.

The answer here is a lot simpler than people think:

It was the most backwater of the major powers, in the 20's and 30's. Criminalizing homosexuality was a simple result of the thing that everybody in the country had grown up in a conservative, religiously dominated country.

That they didn't see past it was shamefull and not to be emulated, but I doubt there's any overarching conspiracies behind this one. They just didn't know better yet, and sadly did not take Lenin's lead.

[Tim Finnegan]

"Hey, why don't we overthrow the Tsar?"
"Good idea!"
"De-establish the church?"
"Even better!"
"Overthrow the Provisional government?"
"Genius!"
"Abolish private property?"
"I swear, it's like you're reading my mind!"
"Not dictate what people do in the bedroom?"
"What!? Ugh, now you're just being silly."

:rolleyes:

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Anyone interested in the original question, "Homosexuality and Communism," would do well to look into the life and writings of Daniel Guérin, a very out, very active Marxist/anarchist writer and organizer from the 1920s on, and who was active in almost every movement from the Spanish Civil War to the black struggle in America. Among his many writings (on the class struggle in the French Revolution, on Anarchism, on colonialism), my favorite is his memoir of a hot affair he had with a Nazi officer...

[TheGeekySocialist]

if you are homophobic you are not a leftist, it's a reactionary viewpoint to hold and is utterly incompatible with Left wing politics and certainly it is completely contrary to Socialism.

[Kalipso]

Hey, you are talking about such teaser topic....I am writing an essay on this topic... And i want to tellyou, that I read a few works of Daniel Guerin, and his books help me very much. it is a very useful information in them. :)