Why was homosexuality illegal in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era? [Archive]

Aurora

5th April 2012, 01:35

It has to be understood in context, it's no coincidence that a whole bunch of progressive positions just happened to be swept away at the same time all semblance of democracy ceased to be and at the time leading bolsheviks were executed en masse.

Before Stalin's clique rose to power the bolsheviks had some pretty fucked views about homosexuality but it was a conscious decision to make it legal, i mention this only to preempt the inevitable apologism to come of 'the bolsheviks didn't really make homosexuality legal they just abolished the czarist legal code'

"[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]

RedAtheist

5th April 2012, 01:43

I don't know much about this, but I think it'd be safe to assume it was at least partially because homosexuality doesn't increase population, right? Wasn't abortion a punishable offense, as well? :confused:

It's the same justification the Christian right uses today. They claim marriage is for making babies and gays can't do that. The justification is weak now and it was weak back then. Though it does reveal a lot about how the Christian right views sex, relationships and women.

#FF0000

5th April 2012, 01:48

stalin needed babies to eat

Lanky Wanker

5th April 2012, 01:50

Well they changed a bunch of stuff to encourage people to have big families so they thought the good ol' "swallow your gayness and get a wife" line would help increase their numbers as well. Maybe Stalin was just a frustrated man in denial of his own sexuality...

Amal

5th April 2012, 02:07

It seems like accusing Peter The Great for not being "democratic". Most here forgot that some decade before that, sexuality of woman had been considered "abnormal, obscene" even in the US. Women also has sexual desires has been "discovered" in those times.
During the medieval era, in the middle east, it's pretty common for a father to gift his son a donkey for animal sex. Well, I want to know how many liberal "democratic" countries today will allow it? If not, what kind of phobic those rulers are?

Robocommie

5th April 2012, 02:08

During the medieval era, in the middle east, it's pretty common for a father to gift his son a donkey for animal sex.

Cite, please. Sounds like bullshit

Lanky Wanker

5th April 2012, 02:10

During the medieval era, in the middle east, it's pretty common for a father to gift his son a donkey for animal sex.

Are there any places that I could go to find some of these fathers nowadays? :o I won't make a habit of it, I swear.

The Young Pioneer

5th April 2012, 02:14

I wasn't trying to justify/defend banning it 'cause it doesn't increase population. I was simply guessing that this could've been part of the reason it was outlawed.

...To clarify.

#FF0000

5th April 2012, 03:16

During the medieval era, in the middle east, it's pretty common for a father to gift his son a donkey for animal sex.

implying they didn't do the same thing with sheep in europe

e: still do

Sir Comradical

5th April 2012, 10:30

Because if decadent homosexuals were allowed to marry, sissiness would infect the soviet man like a virus and the USSR would lose WW2. But of course that's what the Trotskyite revisionists wanted.

Rooster

5th April 2012, 10:36

Should it be legal?

Come on now, drug addicts should be more legal than the homosexuals.

Wut?

Zav

5th April 2012, 10:47

He was a socially conservative prick. To be fair though, that was the '30s, and in context it isn't as reactionary.

seventeethdecember2016

5th April 2012, 11:05

The answer was to increase the population of the SU. It was also looked at as a Bourgeois activity- as absurd as that may sound. It wasn't banned until the Great Purge, which means they were considered a reasonable threat to the stability of the Soviet state.
Keep in mind, this happened in the 1930s. Homosexuality was illegal far beyond Stalin's era, all the way to the fall. It is something to say that Stalin was the first to implant this, but it is another thing to say that it was kept enforced long after Stalin.
This shows that most people agreed that Homosexuals should be punished.

I believe the Trotskyists supported LGBT, as I've read something from 4th International that suggested that.

Here's the really short answer: Stalin was a homophobe.
That's just a speculation to be honest.

Thirsty Crow

5th April 2012, 11:06

Should it be legal?

Come on now, drug addicts should be more legal than the homosexuals.
It's not so easy to tell whether this is irony in poor taste or actual opinion.

Anyway, there's a huge hole in this whole context and product of times argument. The Bolshevik Party in 1917 was also a product of its times, and somehow managed to lift the ban on homosexuality imposed by the Tsarist regime. Now, in what way then did the Party in Stalin's time differ from that of 1917 who abolished the illegal status of homosexuality?

That's just a speculation to be honest.
Yeah, it's speculation since fearing that homosexuals represent a veritable threat to the Soviet state is nothing like homophobia.

You people are just unbelievable.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

5th April 2012, 11:09

By Marx's Beard! what one reads here.... Have you never heard of Marx's wise quote that Each man is prisoner of his time, and the weight of past generations weigh on him like a rock'. Not perfectly quoted, but, marxists are the most progressive and scientific political affiliates. That said, Castro mentioned this in some interview and don't forget that homosexuality had been completely self-suppressed for fear of societal alienation in history and only really became a social issue in the latter half of the 20th century. 'Man is a prisoner of his time'

Danielle Ni Dhighe

5th April 2012, 11:24

Should it be legal?

Come on now, drug addicts should be more legal than the homosexuals.
You're either being sarcastic or you're a reactionary.

Deicide

5th April 2012, 11:41

Because if decadent homosexuals were allowed to marry, sissiness would infect the soviet man like a virus and the USSR would lose WW2. But of course that's what the Trotskyite revisionists wanted.

Is this guy being serious? Surely.. this is the sort of vileness you'd expect from a nazi's filthy sewer..

#FF0000

5th April 2012, 11:58

Should it be legal?

Come on now, drug addicts should be more legal than the homosexuals.

Woah how'd everyone miss this gem until just now?

EDIT: on topic real quick, I am pretty sure homesexuality being banned again had nothing to do with Stalin. The law was signed by folks in the supreme soviet but not Stalin, for what that's worth.

seventeethdecember2016

5th April 2012, 12:02

Yeah, it's speculation since fearing that homosexuals represent a veritable threat to the Soviet state is nothing like homophobia.

You people are just unbelievable.
Your not making rational arguments. It is not great dissent, it is not unusual to see a brief period of injustices as the government tries to quell the unrest. Once this was over, there was little reason to retract the law as LGBTs were part of the unrest. The law was kept as a way to quell future uprisings, if they were to occur.

There is a certain point that I'm going to point out that will change the outlook of this. Even though Homosexuality was punishable with up to 5 years of hard labor, it was rarely enforced. It was only enforced as a smoke-screen law to punish dissidence.

Sir Comradical

5th April 2012, 12:15

Is this guy being serious? Surely.. this is the sort of vileness you'd expect from a nazi's filthy sewer..

Fear not, next time I'll lay on a much thicker coat of sarcasm.

Ismail

5th April 2012, 13:02

Early Marxists tended to associate homosexuality with degeneracy, simply because, even though they cast aside religion, there were still plenty of prejudices. Hence why Engels commented to Marx that they were "lucky" too old to have to pay "physical tribute to the victors" in the future society where homosexuality was legal.

Before Stalin's clique rose to power the bolsheviks had some pretty fucked views about homosexuality but it was a conscious decision to make it legal, i mention this only to preempt the inevitable apologism to come of 'the bolsheviks didn't really make homosexuality legal they just abolished the czarist legal code'

"[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]That doesn't invalidate the fact that yeah, they simply abolished the Tsarist legal code. A pamphlet by a professor doesn't mean that homosexuality was recognized as equal before the law, just that it wasn't a criminal act because there was nothing in penal law about it being such. All the Soviet government had to do was amend the penal code and bam, homosexual acts became illegal again.

Also, to answer another guy in the thread, restricting abortion was done to increase the population, not restricting homosexuality. The position on homosexuals wasn't "damn you gay people, put your penises where it counts," it was "we must find these homosexuals and arrest them for posing serious harm to children and for generally being involved in anti-Soviet activities."

Obviously such views reflect prejudice, but that is indeed how the vast majority of people across the world thought 70 years ago.

Now, in what way then did the Party in Stalin's time differ from that of 1917 who abolished the illegal status of homosexuality?Well, considering that abortion was explicitly legalized while being called an "evil" that socialism would eventually render unnecessary, I assume people were disappointed that gays didn't stop being gay. I don't think homosexuality somehow represented an obstacle that the "Stalinist bureaucracy" had to illegalize in order to assume total control over anything. Trotsky never mentioned the illegalization of homosexuality (though he did have many justified words against restricting abortion), and at any rate the GDR (a "deformed worker's state" according to Trots) apparently decriminalized homosexual acts in the late 60's/early 70's, which fits with it being the most "Westernized" of the Eastern Bloc states.

Meanwhile in Albania male homosexuals were seen as the horrible exploiters of women in tribal regions while lesbians were seen as a reaction to that, thus male homosexuality was outlawed while lesbianism was explicitly not illegal (and this was mentioned in the penal code, no less) on the basis of "positive discrimination" in order to put an end to centuries of inequality between men and women. So yeah, different times and all that.

The Jay

5th April 2012, 13:39

Your not making rational arguments. It is not great dissent, it is not unusual to see a brief period of injustices as the government tries to quell the unrest. Once this was over, there was little reason to retract the law as LGBTs were part of the unrest. The law was kept as a way to quell future uprisings, if they were to occur.

There is a certain point that I'm going to point out that will change the outlook of this. Even though Homosexuality was punishable with up to 5 years of hard labor, it was rarely enforced. It was only enforced as a smoke-screen law to punish dissidence.

That only makes him look worse, using bigotry to oppress dissent as well as homosexuals. I'm not sure if you're defending his actions or explaining them because you're making him look very very bad.

Leftsolidarity

5th April 2012, 13:58

Should it be legal?

Come on now, drug addicts should be more legal than the homosexuals.

It seems like most people missed this one....

seventeethdecember2016

5th April 2012, 16:17

That only makes him look worse, using bigotry to oppress dissent as well as homosexuals. I'm not sure if you're defending his actions or explaining them because you're making him look very very bad.
I feel like your just naive. Tell me, should we have the revolution and have it destroyed or distorted every few decades due to a few self righteous Liberals, or Trotskyists, or etc.(not saying that these Homosexuals were any of these.)
If it was banned after years of being allowed, you can imagine that they were a reasonable threat to the stability of the state.

Leftsolidarity

5th April 2012, 16:20

I feel like your just naive. Tell me, should we have the revolution and have it destroyed or distorted every few decades due to a few self righteous Liberals, or Trotskyists, or etc.(not saying that these Homosexuals were any of these.)
If it was banned after years of being allowed, you can imagine that they were a reasonable threat to the stability of the state.

What? Are you saying that homosexuals were a threat to the Soviet state? That's fucking ridiculous.

The Jay

5th April 2012, 16:24

I feel like your just naive. Tell me, should we have the revolution and have it destroyed or distorted every few decades due to a few self righteous Liberals, or Trotskyists, or etc.(not saying that these Homosexuals were any of these.)
If it was banned after years of being allowed, you can imagine that they were a reasonable threat to the stability of the state.

How could people deciding who to have sex with have anything to do with the state? Tell me, really. I'm dying to know how it's anyone's business. Also, it's nice to know that whenever someone disagrees with you, all you have to do is call them a liberal and everything they say can be ignored.

Dzo Komunjara

5th April 2012, 17:10

Stalin did his best in this case.

People lost their moral in this world long time ago. So you don't care if that happens one more time. There will always be mutants that cannot be called human being. First, racists than nationalists, than homo/bisexuals, than transgenders.. and so on.

The most residual states are really good about it. One of good points, and there come you liberals to free them like in Libya. I'm sure that there in some 20-30 years of American influence, gays will show up.

SinoRebel

5th April 2012, 17:58

Stalin was only a pseudo-communist, let's not forget that. He was authoritarian and even pandered to Russian nationalism (which is ironic considering his Georgian ancestry). I would even call him a semi-Fascist masquerading as a communist, ignoring his economic views that is.

Red Rabbit

5th April 2012, 18:46

That's just a speculation to be honest.

Not sure how wanting to ban homosexuality is anything but homophobic.

I feel like your just naive. Tell me, should we have the revolution and have it destroyed or distorted every few decades due to a few self righteous Liberals, or Trotskyists, or etc.(not saying that these Homosexuals were any of these.)
If it was banned after years of being allowed, you can imagine that they were a reasonable threat to the stability of the state.

Are you seriously supporting the ban?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

5th April 2012, 19:07

Even if - and this is a massive, improbable if - the Bolshevik banning of homosexuality was a product of its times and we viewed it as such, then what are we to say about the hordes of Marxist-Leninists today who do not utterly condemn the banning of homosexuality today?

It's not good enough to just say 'it was a product of its time'. Rarely do people like Ismail actually focus on the horrendous prejudice of anti-gay legislation, they simply focus on defending their darling Stalin.

It's pathetic, backward and encapsulates so well why the views of people like Ismail are becoming so irrelevant, unpopular and out of touch with the wider working class.

Ismail

5th April 2012, 19:39

Even if - and this is a massive, improbable if - the Bolshevik banning of homosexuality was a product of its times and we viewed it as such,Why is it a "massive, improbable if"? What gay rights movement existed in Russia? What Russian communist supported gay rights at the time? Chicherin, who if I recall correctly was the only notable gay Bolshevik, apparently spent some time in the 20's "relaxing" at institutions designed to help with mental health problems (probably due both to stress in-re his job and the perceived need to "cure" his "illness") and obviously wasn't open about his homosexuality.

then what are we to say about the hordes of Marxist-Leninists today who do not utterly condemn the banning of homosexuality today?

It's not good enough to just say 'it was a product of its time'. Rarely do people like Ismail actually focus on the horrendous prejudice of anti-gay legislation, they simply focus on defending their darling Stalin.I was unaware of Marxist-Leninists anywhere in the West (as groups, not one or two guys) endorsing anti-gay legislation. You can find Marxist-Leninists in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, or Asia holding such views, but of course you'd apparently deny that's because their cultures tend to be more socially conservative than Europe and North America.

It's pathetic, backward and encapsulates so well why the views of people like Ismail are becoming so irrelevant, unpopular and out of touch with the wider working class.Yes, because apparently the masses of workers of the USA and Europe are demanding that Marxist-Leninists account for Stalin's government criminalizing homosexuality 76 years ago.

Last I heard the American Party of Labor is run by a gay guy. PSL is avowedly supportive of LGBT rights, ditto with the CPUSA, FRSO and WWP. The only "Stalinist" party I know of that was still homophobic into the 21st century was the RCPUSA, but it dropped homophobia shortly after. Besides, Trot parties have had a rather checkered past on this issue as well. E.g. apparently Tim Wohlforth, then a leading member of what would become the SEP, spoke in the 70's that (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no30/no30-GRPI-WSWS.html), "The working class hates hippies, faggots and women's libbers, and so do we!"

Omsk

5th April 2012, 19:55

With the question of homosexuality and other social questions in the Soviet Union,usualy comes the question of abortion,and why it was 'banned' . The answer is not because "Glorious Soviet state was controlled by Stalin and he hated abortion" but because there was a real existing problem of the birth rates,and,like the question of homosexuality,the question of abortion in 1936,can't be pulled out of the time frame,and criticized from the modern perspective.

This is a common explanation.

- In 1936, in view of the rising standard of welfare of the people, the government passed a law prohibiting abortion, at the same time adopting an extensive program for the building of maternity homes, nurseries, milk centers and kindergartens. In 1936, 2,174,000,000 rubles were assigned for these measures, as compared with 875 million rubles in 1935. A law was passed providing for considerable grants to large families. Grants to a total of over one billion rubles were made in 1937 under this law. Commission of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B.), Ed. History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks): Short Course. Moscow: FLPH, 1939, p. 340

Ismail

5th April 2012, 19:57

The thread is about homosexuality, though, which I can assure you wasn't made illegal based on birth rates. The issue of abortion, for what it's worth, was actually popularly debated at the time, with all sorts of opinions coming forth from across the country (see Sarah Davies' Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia, pp. 65-68.)

Omsk

5th April 2012, 20:07

The thread is about homosexuality, though, which I can assure you wasn't made illegal based on birth rates. That never came up in discussions. The issue of abortion, for what it's worth, was actually popularly debated at the time, with all sorts of opinions coming forth from across the country (see Sarah Davies' Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia, pp. 65-68.)

Well,sorry for the interuption,but the two (Homosexuality/Abortion) usually come up in pair when people criticize the Soviet society.

When i mentioned the problems with the birth rates,i linked it with abortion,not homosexuality.

And yes,for an example,many doctors were involved in the debate around the abortion discussion,and many other specialists.

The point is that it's pointless and a loss of time to criticize the decisions made in the '30 looking from a modern-day perspective.And it's even worse to criticize a political ideology based on a decision made so many years ago,because,a contemporary Marxist-Leninist state would obviously make different decisions.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

6th April 2012, 00:32

People lost their moral in this world long time ago. So you don't care if that happens one more time. There will always be mutants that cannot be called human being. First, racists than nationalists, than homo/bisexuals, than transgenders.. and so on.
So you're saying LGBT people are sub-humans? Thanks for sharing, but this is a revolutionary forum, not a reactionary one.

Martin Blank

6th April 2012, 00:35

So you're saying LGBT people are sub-humans? Thanks for sharing, but this is a revolutionary forum, not a reactionary one.

If you want to continue this conversation with him, you'll have to do it in OI.

Leftsolidarity

6th April 2012, 00:43

Why is it a "massive, improbable if"? What gay rights movement existed in Russia? What Russian communist supported gay rights at the time?

Why then was it made legal almost immediately after the revolution then made illegal again under Stalin?

It's not like no one thought that. It was legalized then RE-illegalized under a different leadership.

NewLeft

6th April 2012, 00:56

Why then was it made legal almost immediately after the revolution then made illegal again under Stalin?

It's not like no one thought that. It was legalized the RE-illegalized under a different leadership.
The constitution was scrapped, so it was 'legalized.'

Yuppie Grinder

6th April 2012, 02:15

You know, if Stalin actually had eaten a few infants back in the day I bet M-Ls would defend him for it.

Brosa Luxemburg

6th April 2012, 02:32

Yuppie Grinder

6th April 2012, 02:35

You should probably go and kill yourself. That would make the world a much better place if you and fucking morons like you weren't in it. The only good bigot is a dead bigot.
Absolutely not OK, dude.

Leftsolidarity

6th April 2012, 02:36

Absolutely not OK, dude.

I thought it sounded pretty ok to me...

but anyhow, this is off topic

TheGodlessUtopian

6th April 2012, 02:37

No death wishes please, makes the forum look less vicious.lol

Brosa Luxemburg

6th April 2012, 02:39

Sorry, read it and got a little angry. I am straight, but one of my best friends is gay and it pissed me off to no end to read such an ignorant and arrogant comment by some dipshit.

The Jay

6th April 2012, 02:55

Your not making rational arguments. It is not great dissent, it is not unusual to see a brief period of injustices as the government tries to quell the unrest. Once this was over, there was little reason to retract the law as LGBTs were part of the unrest. The law was kept as a way to quell future uprisings, if they were to occur.

There is a certain point that I'm going to point out that will change the outlook of this. Even though Homosexuality was punishable with up to 5 years of hard labor, it was rarely enforced. It was only enforced as a smoke-screen law to punish dissidence.

I'm still waiting for you to tell myself and everyone here why it's okay to enact bigoted laws to cover up the murdering of political dissidents.

Bostana

6th April 2012, 03:15

It was an time a long ago. Morals were different.

However I do think that those particular policies of Stalin were wrong and/or miss leaded. But over the years people learn and people know. And when a Marxist-Leninist Government is established such laws will not be created.
i.e. Past Marxist-Leninist countries didn't make such laws.

And on another note it wasn't about birth rates
:lol:

The Jay

6th April 2012, 03:19

Yuppie Grinder

6th April 2012, 03:34

It was an time a long ago. Morals were different.
:lol:
Riveting argument.
If you said the same thing about any other sort of despot you'd get restricted.

DrStrangelove

6th April 2012, 03:43

It was done mainly out of ignorance at the time and still traditionally held views about homosexuality. It was often viewed as a "bourgeois decadence."

Even though this was a common viewpoint at the time, Stalin and the Soviet government were still wrong to implement such a law.

We should seek to understand the times in which this law was enacted and the world at said time, but we shouldn't defend it.

Amal

6th April 2012, 04:10

Cite, please. Sounds like bullshit
Here it is! Just read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

Bestiality was accepted in some cultures indigenously, such as North America and the Middle East.[79] Sexual intercourse between humans and non-human animals was common among Native American tribes such as the Hopi Indians.[80] Voget describes the sexual lives of young Native Americans as "rather inclusive," including bestiality.[80] In addition, the Copper Inuit people had "no aversion to intercourse with live animals".[80]

#FF0000

6th April 2012, 09:19

It was an time a long ago. Morals were different

yo but years prior the state's line was officially 'what goes on in the bedroom is private'.

i don't think the 'it was a different time' thing flies, honestly.

Martin Blank

6th April 2012, 10:15

It was an time a long ago. Morals were different.

This is simply wrong. The social-democratic movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had already taken up the banner of LGBTQ rights more than a generation before the October Revolution. The SPD was a prominent defender and supporter of Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific Humanitarian Committee, which fought to repeal Germany's infamous Paragraph 175 outlawing homosexuality. The SPD first introduced a bill to legalize homosexuality in the Reichstag in 1898, and continued to do so every year thereafter until 1933, when the Nazis took over.

Similarly, the radical socialist and anarchist organizations of Britain were among the first and most strident defenders of Oscar Wilde, himself an anarchist, during his trial on charges of sodomy. When Wilde emerged from prison and began writing about their conditions, socialists and anarchists circulated his comments.

For the Bolshevik-led Soviet government to legalize homosexuality was completely in line with the political tradition of the left wing of the Second International and the early Communist International.

Ismail

6th April 2012, 11:27

This is simply wrong. The social-democratic movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had already taken up the banner of LGBTQ rights more than a generation before the October Revolution. The SPD was a prominent defender and supporter of Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific Humanitarian Committee, which fought to repeal Germany's infamous Paragraph 175 outlawing homosexuality. The SPD first introduced a bill to legalize homosexuality in the Reichstag in 1898, and continued to do so every year thereafter until 1933, when the Nazis took over.

Similarly, the radical socialist and anarchist organizations of Britain were among the first and most strident defenders of Oscar Wilde, himself an anarchist, during his trial on charges of sodomy. When Wilde emerged from prison and began writing about their conditions, socialists and anarchists circulated his comments.

For the Bolshevik-led Soviet government to legalize homosexuality was completely in line with the political tradition of the left wing of the Second International and the early Communist International.And yet neither Germany nor Britain were Russia. Both were industrialized countries, whereas Russia was a majority peasant country only starting to industrialize under huge influxes of foreign capital and with far worse standards of religious superstition and cultural backwardness. It's not hard to find evidence of strong gay rights struggles in Weimar-era Germany and not much less stronger in the decades before that (although, as noted, Marx and Engels were homophobic), and obviously homosexuals were a fair bit politically active in Britain as well. I don't recall any notable gay rights movement in Russia, especially not one which fused its activities with the Communists.

Homosexual acts were decriminalized in Russia, but that didn't mean much else. Homosexuals weren't actually equal and they were still viewed by the overwhelming majority of society (including psychologists and other medical figures at that time) as an "aberration" from the norm. Most of the reason for homosexuality being illegalized was because of NKVD reports which basically tied all homosexuals to cases of pedophilia (both of which were seen as one and the same back then, including in Germany), and then of course homosexuality became identified with fascism. Considering the social climate, it didn't take long for this to lead to a decision to criminalize homosexuality again.

See: http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php

Reports of homosexuality in the German fascist leadership had been made public in 1931 and 1932. The more conservative current in the Soviet party, which had by then assumed the reins of leadership, gay-baited the fascists, as did the imperialist powers.

On Sept. 15, 1933--shortly after German-Soviet relations were severed by the rise of Hitler to power--G. G. Iagoda, deputy chief of the Soviet political police, proposed the stricture against male homosexuality.

Iagoda reportedly wrote to Joseph Stalin that the legislation was a matter of state security because of the establishment of "networks of salons, centers, dens, groups and other organized formations of pederasts, with the eventual transformation of these organizations into outright espionage cells.... Pederast activists, using the castelike exclusivity of pederastic circles for plainly counterrevolutionary aims, had politically demoralized various social layers of young men, including young workers, and even attempted to penetrate the army and navy."

Stalin then allegedly forwarded this letter to his Politburo associate L. Kaganovich, saying that "these scoundrels must receive exemplary punishment, and a corresponding guiding decree must be introduced in our legislation."

At no point was lesbianism raised. Masculine lesbians in the ranks and leadership of the military were seen as strong and loyal. Feminine male homosexuals were viewed as weak and untrustworthy...

And in 1933 and 1934, a prohibition against male homosexuality throughout the USSR--which created a 5-year prison penalty--was passed without public fanfare or explanation. In a study of eight Moscow trials of males accused of public homosexuality from 1935 to 1941, only one case in 1935 showed awareness of the new law....

Stalin apparently turned to cultural icon Maxim Gorky. An article by Gorky entitled "Proletarian Humanism" appeared in both Pravda and Izvestia on May 23, 1934. In that now oft-cited article, Gorky offered the "first public explanation of the recriminalization of male homosexuality, and it placed the question squarely within the terms of the propaganda war between Fascism and Communism." ("Homo sexual Desire")

Gorky maintained that homosexuals were not a social minority that needed to be defended in a workers' state...: "In the land where the proletariat governs courageously (muzhestvenno; also translated as manfully) and successfully, homosexuality, with its corrupting effect on the young, is considered a social crime punishable under the law. By contrast, in the 'cultivated land' of the great philosophers, scholars and musicians [Gorky meant Germany--L.F.], it is practiced freely and with impunity. There is already a sarcastic saying: 'Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear.'" ("Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality")

Amal

6th April 2012, 14:02

Basically, homosexuality was very much common among soldiers, group of workers etc in short, where a big group of males had been gathered for any purpose. I have doubt that in those cases, whether homosexuality was an outcome of natural tendencies or an outburst of lack of sex as very few, almost nil women can be found nearby. Therefore, it isn't very amazing that it was often looked at something related to pedophilia.

seventeethdecember2016

6th April 2012, 14:25

How could people deciding who to have sex with have anything to do with the state? Tell me, really. I'm dying to know how it's anyone's business.
Homosexuals were listed, alongside many other groups, as possible threats to the stability of the Soviet Union. Please realize that this was very Bureaucratic, and the threat was taken very seriously. The issue with Homosexuals wasn't very personal, it just feel into a long list of groups that might have caused problems in the long run.

Don't vent your anger out on Stalin, vent it out on the idea of Bureaucracy.

I am also sorry for the long time it took to respond. I wasn't online yesterday.

What? Are you saying that homosexuals were a threat to the Soviet state? That's fucking ridiculous.
Same comment as Liquid.

Are you seriously supporting the ban?
I don't support it, rather I am showing why it happened. The Soviet Union didn't want to go through a Civil War of any kind, especially not with the existential threat of an invasion by countries that want to restore the pre-revolutionary governments.
Homosexuals were listed alongside other groups as POSSIBLE threats to the country. As I stated, this was very Bureaucratic.

Usually when there is strong opposition from a group or a few individuals who claim to represent a group, such as the Homosexuals, it is much easier to simply ban Homosexuality than to go after each and every one of those individuals and pull false charges on them.
Also, as stated earlier, this law was rarely enforced and was only used as a smokescreen law.

Bostana

6th April 2012, 14:55

The Jay

6th April 2012, 15:14

Homosexuals were listed, alongside many other groups, as possible threats to the stability of the Soviet Union. Please realize that this was very Bureaucratic, and the threat was taken very seriously. The issue with Homosexuals wasn't very personal, it just feel into a long list of groups that might have caused problems in the long run.

Don't vent your anger out on Stalin, vent it out on the idea of Bureaucracy.

Usually when there is strong opposition from a group or a few individuals who claim to represent a group, such as the Homosexuals, it is much easier to simply ban Homosexuality than to go after each and every one of those individuals and pull false charges on them.
Also, as stated earlier, this law was rarely enforced and was only used as a smokescreen law.

You have only shifted the blame from Stalin to others under his command. By that logic it's the bureaucracy that won WW2. Anyway, you still haven't answered what good excuse a government can make for a bigoted law that also is used to oppress it's own people.

Leftsolidarity

6th April 2012, 16:01

You Guys must realize that they were no such thing as Gay rights movement at that time and date. That doesn't completely justify Stalin's actions but you might aswell look at the rest of Socialist history if you're going to look at Stalin's.

You should read "The History of Lesbian and Gay Oppression"

It's really good and talks about this situation too.

seventeethdecember2016

6th April 2012, 16:09

You have only shifted the blame from Stalin to others under his command. By that logic it's the bureaucracy that won WW2. Anyway, you still haven't answered what good excuse a government can make for a bigoted law that also is used to oppress it's own people.
I thought my reasons were satisfactory, so I'll keep them as is.

What are you getting at with your Bureaucracy claim? Could you elaborate a little bit?

Rooster

6th April 2012, 16:09

You have only shifted the blame from Stalin to others under his command. By that logic it's the bureaucracy that won WW2. Anyway, you still haven't answered what good excuse a government can make for a bigoted law that also is used to oppress it's own people.

They also didn't mention how it could be a threat to the soviet state. Unless the state thought that homosexuality= capitalism or something. Pretty sure this is along the same lines as long hair and jungle music.

The Dark Side of the Moon

6th April 2012, 16:20

Brosa Luxemburg

6th April 2012, 16:28

Well, you have the entire western homophobe area against you, would you
A. Say homosexuality is legal, then give them some great reason to invade or propoganda, or both
B. illegalize homosexuality so the western giants don't invade, again.

Edit: I'm really not defending Stalin in this case, but I might have agreed on this case.

The imperialist powers would not have invaded Russia again for homosexuality. That claim is ridiculous. They would have invaded because the USSR was challenging western hegemony. Homosexuality would not have caused an invasion, and to claim so, to me, seems really screwy and seems that someone has lost their grip on reality, honestly.

As far as propaganda, the John Birch Society claimed the Soviets ate their own babies up to the 1970's. It wouldn't have matter if homosexuality was legal, propaganda like this existed anyway.

You claim you're not defending Stalin, but agree with him. Care to elaborate, because that makes no sense.

Leftsolidarity

6th April 2012, 16:29

Threetune

6th April 2012, 16:39

"The authorities in tsarist Russia avoided enforcing the law against upper-class homosexuals. There was no major homosexual scandal in pre-1917 Russia to match those of Britain's Oscar Wilde, Austria-Hungary's Colonel Alfred Redl, or the German Prince Eulenberg. Powerful supporters of the Romanov dynasty, and members ofthe tsar's family, were flagrantly gay, andreceived patronage and immunity from the throne. Yet when thegovernment drafted a new criminal code — never to be adopted — in 1903, it continued to criminalize male homosexuality.

When revolution came in 1917, theProvisional Government wanted to enact the 1903 criminal code, but lost power to the Bolsheviks, who abrogated all tsarist law in November 1917. Until 1922 there was no written criminal law.
During this interval successive codes were drafted and discarded.

All of these drafts, beginning with the first written in early 1918 by the Bolsheviks' coalition partners, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, and continuing with versions drafted in1920-21 by Bolshevik jurists and a consultant from the Cheka, decriminalized homosexuality. The first Soviet criminal code of 1922 and the revision of this code in1926 both confirmed the legality of voluntary same-sex relations. "

Edit: The first state in history to do this.

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/a-russian-history-of-homophobia/455804.html#ixzz1rH5kO6vb
The Moscow Times

Amal

6th April 2012, 17:07

I can't understand, when in the world of today, where even heterosexual couples had been killed in the name of family honor, then why issue of homosexuals has become such a big issue? Isn't it some kind of excuse for some "leftists" to jump on Stalin with another issue?
I am curious to know how much liberal the "democracies" were during that period towards homosexuality. I know that even in first decades of 20th century, sexuality of women had been looked upon as something obscene in US.

Per Levy

6th April 2012, 17:20

Well, you have the entire western homophobe area against you, would you
A. Say homosexuality is legal, then give them some great reason to invade or propoganda, or both
B. illegalize homosexuality so the western giants don't invade, again.

Edit: I'm really not defending Stalin in this case, but I might have agreed on this case.

this is probally one of the most idiotic posts i've ever read on this site and that is saying a lot. not one of the bourgeois super powers would have attacked the soviet union because homosexualaity was legalized there, they did attack the soviet union(during the civil war) because there was a revolution and because the bourgeosie of russia was overthrown and therefore the interests of the other bourgeois states were endangered.

tbh this is such a pathetic excuse for the ban on homosexuality that it is not even funny.

Threetune

6th April 2012, 17:24

The anti-communist ‘lefts’ make this a big issue because the anti-communist human rights (capitalist rights) industry tells them to.
Listen to homosexual Leninists and organise for the defeat of imperialism or listen to the anti-communist ‘lefts’ and try and reform all social sexual and personal relations in a capitalist world order. As if.

Per Levy

6th April 2012, 17:30

I can't understand, when in the world of today, where even heterosexual couples had been killed in the name of family honor, then why issue of homosexuals has become such a big issue?

maybe because homosexuals were opressed for the longest of time and still are nowadays in many countries.

Isn't it some kind of excuse for some "leftists" to jump on Stalin with another issue?

ah ja, you're not a real leftist when you're not bowing down to stalins altar every day. also, do you not think that the ban of homosxuality was a bad thing? especially since it was legalized for pretty much a decade before?

I am curious to know how much liberal the "democracies" were during that period towards homosexuality. I know that even in first decades of 20th century, sexuality of women had been looked upon as something obscene in US.

if stoning was legalized execution method in the sovieut union during stalins time you'd probally just say"well saudia arabia has still stoning today therefore its not as bad when the soviets did it in the past". the point is the ban on homosexuals was reactionary and it was reactionary whereever it was banned.

@threetune: thanks for that article was a interesting read.

Per Levy

6th April 2012, 17:36

Listen to homosexual Leninists and organise for the defeat of imperialism or listen to the anti-communist ‘lefts’ and try and reform all social sexual and personal relations in a capitalist world order. As if.

to an extent this is very true though, we will never have equal rights for women, homosexuals and so on if we cant bring down the system that enforces these inequalities.

ps: i only use the word "rights" cause i dont feel like wording my posts differently right now, but i know that rights means nothing, and that rights can be taken away anytime and any day.

Threetune

6th April 2012, 17:47

[QUOTE=Per Levy;2407424]to an extent this is very true though, we will never have equal rights for women, homosexuals and so on if we cant bring down the system that enforces these inequalities.
QUOTE]

and together with the universal historical economic and cultural ‘norms’ that sustain all oppression. Its not a one act play as I know you understand.

seventeethdecember2016

6th April 2012, 17:49

They also didn't mention how it could be a threat to the soviet state. Unless the state thought that homosexuality= capitalism or something. Pretty sure this is along the same lines as long hair and jungle music.
I didn't explain it? What do you mean I didn't explain it?

I said it fell into a larger group that was banned. Homosexuality alone was a trivial activity, which is why there was little to no opposition to banning it.
I know some people claimed it was a legacy of the Bourgeois system, and thus it had no place in a Proletarian country.

I have well detailed this in my other comments, feel free to look at them.

The Jay

6th April 2012, 18:17

I didn't explain it? What do you mean I didn't explain it?

I said it fell into a larger group that was banned. Homosexuality alone was a trivial activity, which is why there was little to no opposition to banning it.
I know some people claimed it was a legacy of the Bourgeois system, and thus it had no place in a Proletarian country.

I have well detailed this in my other comments, feel free to look at them.

You haven't given any explanation, just unconnected (some wrong) details. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that homosexuality posed any threat to anyone, period! Further, it is not alright to create laws that are bullshit so that you can get rid of rivals! Homosexuality is not a crime!

As for what I meant about blaming bureaucracy, if it's the bureaucracy's fault for bigoted laws then it's the bureaucracy's success for winning WWII. That would take a big dump all over great-man worship wouldn't it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Amal

6th April 2012, 18:29

maybe because homosexuals were opressed for the longest of time and still are nowadays in many countries.
MOST OPPRESSED? What is the % of homosexuals of the whole humanity? What's the reason for oppression?

ah ja, you're not a real leftist when you're not bowing down to stalins altar every day. also, do you not think that the ban of homosxuality was a bad thing? especially since it was legalized for pretty much a decade before?
Well, spitting on her name 30 times daily would probably the sign of a good leftist. Do you want to mean that homosexuality was legal in Tsarist Russia?

if stoning was legalized execution method in the sovieut union during stalins time you'd probally just say"well saudia arabia has still stoning today therefore its not as bad when the soviets did it in the past". the point is the ban on homosexuals was reactionary and it was reactionary whereever it was banned.
@threetune: thanks for that article was a interesting read.
Why just Saudi Arab, you can better step back to medieval ages too. I am not callous enough to think of USSR as something created in heaven and it shouldn't have any evolution at all. And later found that I am wrong and then began to cry "the evil Stalin .......".

seventeethdecember2016

6th April 2012, 19:23

You haven't given any explanation, just unconnected (some wrong) details. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that homosexuality posed any threat to anyone, period! Further, it is not alright to create laws that are bullshit so that you can get rid of rivals! Homosexuality is not a crime!
Your questions have been more than answered. If you refuse to recognize the answers, be my guest.
Since you claimed some of my details are wrong, I'd like you to back it up. Otherwise it is rude to leave baseless comments like that in your post.

As for what I meant about blaming bureaucracy, if it's the bureaucracy's fault for bigoted laws then it's the bureaucracy's success for winning WWII. That would take a big dump all over great-man worship wouldn't it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
What the f---!!! Where in there world did you get a hint that a worship Stalin? I asked you to elaborate because I thought I must have been mistaken earlier when I read your claim that I would credit Stalin for the victory of WW2. The victory of WW2 was thanks, in part, to the Bureaucracy which worked extensively to win this war. Also, the real victors were the Proletariat who, although going through unimaginable losses, seized the victory for the workers' state.

Per Levy

6th April 2012, 20:52

MOST OPPRESSED? What is the % of homosexuals of the whole humanity? What's the reason for oppression?

who said anything about "MOST OPPRESSED"? you wont find that in my post you quoted.

Well, spitting on her name 30 times daily would probably the sign of a good leftist. Do you want to mean that homosexuality was legal in Tsarist Russia?

of course not, i was saying that homosexuality was legal for over a decade in the soviet union before it was banned ffs.

I am not callous enough to think of USSR as something created in heaven and it shouldn't have any evolution at all. And later found that I am wrong and then began to cry "the evil Stalin .......".

strawman over strawman, you're so boring. the major critique here is just that homosexuality was legal in the soviet union for years and then it was banned. and yeah thats stupid and not to be defended as some do in this thread.

Rooster

6th April 2012, 21:03

Your questions have been more than answered. If you refuse to recognize the answers, be my guest.
Since you claimed some of my details are wrong, I'd like you to back it up. Otherwise it is rude to leave baseless comments like that in your post.

You haven't answered anything. You just said that homosexuality might pose a threat to the state. The sort of threat you have mentioned was one of as a special interest group towards the state, which doesn't make sense if homosexuality wasn't illegal. So, anyway, let's get back to the point; how exactly does one's sexuality threat the state?

La ComÃ©die Noire

6th April 2012, 21:03

Would you believe me if I told you it was because of the material conditions?

Ismail

6th April 2012, 23:48

I'm pretty sure I gave the reason why homosexuality was outlawed (it was wrongly associated with pederasty, fascism and, yes, capitalism.) I don't see why some people in this thread need to defend the criminalization of homosexuality because "otherwise the West would invade them for legalizing homosexuality" or "Stalin didn't know about it" (which is wrong) or other odd claims. The NKVD reported that gay people were raping children and were establishing ties with fascists; as unlikely as that sounds to modern ears, the Party leadership trusted said reports and acted on them, obviously with preconceived homophobic prejudices.

And, lame as it may be, no one cared when homosexuality was made illegal. Trotsky never mentioned it (but, again, he had more than a few words on restricting abortion), no anti-Soviet/"Stalinist" group ever mentioned it at the time, and there was no notable opposition within the Party apparatus itself to the policy.

Martin Blank

7th April 2012, 04:53

And yet neither Germany nor Britain were Russia. Both were industrialized countries, whereas Russia was a majority peasant country only starting to industrialize under huge influxes of foreign capital and with far worse standards of religious superstition and cultural backwardness. It's not hard to find evidence of strong gay rights struggles in Weimar-era Germany and not much less stronger in the decades before that (although, as noted, Marx and Engels were homophobic), and obviously homosexuals were a fair bit politically active in Britain as well. I don't recall any notable gay rights movement in Russia, especially not one which fused its activities with the Communists.

I don't believe in Russian exceptionalism any more than I do American exceptionalism, especially when it is placed in the context of a proletarian revolution led by self-proclaimed communists and internationalists. That the modern LGBTQ rights movement had only begun about 20 years before the October Revolution, and was only beginning to develop internationally in the period following the First World War (the first U.S. LGBTQ organization was formed in 1924), makes it understandable that there was little organizing among homosexuals taking place in Russia before 1917. Nevertheless, the early 20th century LGBTQ movement had, on an international level, begun to fuse with the center and left wings of the Second International before WWI. As internationalists, and as exiles in Europe before the War, there is little doubt that Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders had themselves been in contact with this nascent movement.

In a broader sense, the narrowness and backwardness of the Russian peasant wasn't much of a consideration -- beyond economic issues -- for the Bolsheviks. It didn't stop the Bolsheviks from separating church and state, from actively combating anti-Semitism and pogroms, from extending full equal rights to women, from fighting against Great Russian chauvinism, etc.

Homosexual acts were decriminalized in Russia, but that didn't mean much else. Homosexuals weren't actually equal and they were still viewed by the overwhelming majority of society (including psychologists and other medical figures at that time) as an "aberration" from the norm.

And yet, as Threetune most graciously pointed out: "All of these drafts [of the RSFSR criminal code], beginning with the first written in early 1918 by the Bolsheviks' coalition partners, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, and continuing with versions drafted in 1920-21 by Bolshevik jurists and a consultant from the Cheka, decriminalized homosexuality. The first Soviet [USSR] criminal code of 1922 and the revision of this code in 1926 both confirmed the legality of voluntary same-sex relations."

Yes, it is true that cultural homophobia continued to exist; it exists to this day in virtually every country in the world. Regardless, they were seen as equal in the eyes of the law, and their lives, both publicly and privately, were protected by the Soviet state. Many of the Great Power imperialists today have not been able to accomplish that much.

Most of the reason for homosexuality being illegalized was because of NKVD reports which basically tied all homosexuals to cases of pedophilia (both of which were seen as one and the same back then, including in Germany), and then of course homosexuality became identified with fascism. Considering the social climate, it didn't take long for this to lead to a decision to criminalize homosexuality again.

See: http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php

I consider this to be a revealing point of view. The armed bodies of the Soviet state, acting in the interests of the petty-bourgeois national socialists (as in social-nationalists, not Nazis) in power in the USSR, repeated the same arguments as the bourgeois countries in Europe for criminalizing homosexuality, while at the same time, the propagandists of that petty-bourgeois ruling class used the peccadilloes of individual Nazis like Herman Goering to wage a cynical and socially-backward campaign, culminating in the re-criminalizing of male homosexuals.

Honestly, I find that to be worse than the "morality" argument. At least I can understand the concept of a "moral compass" guiding legislation, even if it is wholly reactionary. But to do it based on a cynical campaign to gay-bait the Nazis is just fucking disgusting. I hope you don't actually believe this was a correct thing to do, Ismail.

Ismail

7th April 2012, 13:44

I don't believe in Russian exceptionalism any more than I do American exceptionalism, especially when it is placed in the context of a proletarian revolution led by self-proclaimed communists and internationalists.And yet, for all these words, there's no evidence that the Bolshevik leaders themselves weren't homophobic on a personal level. Or that the legions of psychologists, medical officials, etc. schooled in the days of Tsarist and religious obscurantism didn't regard homosexuality as some sort of "degenerate" activity that would either somehow go away on its own or be made illegal once more.

As internationalists, and as exiles in Europe before the War, there is little doubt that Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders had themselves been in contact with this nascent movement.And yet Lenin denounced Freud along with Kollontai's calls for free love. Lenin never once spoke about gay rights, and there's no evidence of him even writing on the subject of homosexuality. He wrote plenty on women's rights, plenty on the rights of Muslims and ethnic minorities of the former Russian Empire, etc.

If abortion could be called "evil" in the same decree legalizing it, is it really so hard to think that the early Bolsheviks simply thought that homosexuals could be "evened out" (so to speak) under socialism?

In a broader sense, the narrowness and backwardness of the Russian peasant wasn't much of a consideration -- beyond economic issues -- for the Bolsheviks. It didn't stop the Bolsheviks from separating church and state, from actively combating anti-Semitism and pogroms, from extending full equal rights to women, from fighting against Great Russian chauvinism, etc.The call for separating church from state stemmed from the very first days of Marxism as a movement, including the outright abolition of religion (however one may interpret that.) Marx and Engels spoke and wrote much on women's rights. I've already noted Lenin speaking out in the latter two cases and he spoke out very much against anti-semitism as well, as did most early Marxists.

But again, when it came to homosexuals, he said nothing. Nor did Trotsky in the 30's.

Also, I was mentioning more the fact of doctors and psychologists opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of it supposedly being a "mental illness" and other things. I'm pretty sure the weight of respected and trusted medical officials on this subject (despite holding views which, in hindsight, were very obviously wrong) was far more important than local peasant prejudices.

Yes, it is true that cultural homophobia continued to exist; it exists to this day in virtually every country in the world. Regardless, they were seen as equal in the eyes of the law, and their lives, both publicly and privately, were protected by the Soviet state. Many of the Great Power imperialists today have not been able to accomplish that much.And yet, although it was the express goal of the Bolsheviks to have full equality for women, for all the nationalities, etc., I do not recall homosexuals having equal rights (outside of not being arrested for private sexual activities.)

Honestly, I find that to be worse than the "morality" argument. At least I can understand the concept of a "moral compass" guiding legislation, even if it is wholly reactionary. But to do it based on a cynical campaign to gay-bait the Nazis is just fucking disgusting.It's quite simple: the Soviet leadership, not basing themselves on religion or idealism, tried to think things through on a materialist basis. Obviously lacking the knowledge that homosexuality is normal, their views were shaped by the material conditions existent at that time, much like Marx being an enthusiastic supporter of phrenology.

There was no "oh god homosexual sex is icky"-sort of stuff being discussed. The NKVD, again, reported that gays were pedophiles and inclined towards capitalism and fascism, regardless of how ridiculous that sounds to people today. The arguments about abortion never really stemmed from moral issues either (as Sarah Davies noted, even the public debates about illegalizing it were quite absent of any moral arguments.)

I hope you don't actually believe this was a correct thing to do, Ismail.If I thought it was correct I wouldn't be putting quotation marks around words like "degenerate" or whatever as I've done countless times when this issue comes up.

Illegalizing homosexuality was a backwards step. I don't think you'll find many people in the West, regardless of what "ism" of Communism they support, who would disagree with this. What some of those would disagree with is using this as some sort of "proof" about the USSR after Lenin being fundamentally evil or whatever.

Delenda Carthago

7th April 2012, 13:55

Amazing in a world collapsing what some self titled revolutionaries are occupying their focus on.

Amal

7th April 2012, 15:14

who said anything about "MOST OPPRESSED"? you wont find that in my post you quoted.
If they are "oppressed" for the longest period of history, can they be anything else. And how do you know that? There are examples of homosexuality and bestiality in many ancient cultures.

of course not, i was saying that homosexuality was legal for over a decade in the soviet union before it was banned ffs.
Kindly give me some clear account when it was legalized and when it was re-banned in USSR. Also, can you tell me what is the general attitude of society, including, psychologist and medical researchers among general people of USSR towards homosexuality during those "legal times" of USSR?

strawman over strawman, you're so boring. the major critique here is just that homosexuality was legal in the soviet union for years and then it was banned. and yeah thats stupid and not to be defended as some do in this thread.
You are accusing me of strawman arguments! Do you have a mirror in your home?

Amal

7th April 2012, 15:18

Amazing in a world collapsing what some self titled revolutionaries are occupying their focus on.
What can you expect when they kept aside real issues like sex discrimination, honor killing, women's rights and take those worthless sideline issues like "gay/lesbian right" just to vomit some personal slander on Stalin, Mao and ....
In India, many men and women are killed even today in the name of family honor, but so far I haven't seen anything addressing such burning issues in this website. I don't know what is % of homosexuals among the whole humanity, but still why their issues have such importance among "leftists" while even the very basic human rights of people are ravaged in many countries around the world.

bcbm

7th April 2012, 15:19

pretty sure gay rights are 'basic human rights' bro

Amal

7th April 2012, 15:29

pretty sure gay rights are 'basic human rights' bro
We, human beings have many other rights to think about than just the "gay rights" bro. To me, it's much down in my priority list. I will only think of them when the priorities above are all properly fulfilled. After all, you cannot eat the whole lunch in a single mouthful.

Hit The North

7th April 2012, 15:31

What can you expect when they kept aside real issues like sex discrimination, honor killing, women's rights and take those worthless sideline issues like "gay/lesbian right" just to vomit some personal slander on Stalin, Mao and ....
In India, many men and women are killed even today in the name of family honor, but so far I haven't seen anything addressing such burning issues in this website. I don't know what is % of homosexuals among the whole humanity, but still why their issues have such importance among "leftists" while even the very basic human rights of people are ravaged in many countries around the world.

Feel free to start threads on these burning issues. You can even join in on the threads that do exist around women's rights and sex discrimination in the Discrimination forum. The lack of threads on the tragedy of honour killings probably reflects the ethnic mix of the users on RevLeft which is predominantly white, Western and male. However, this is no excuse for turning your back on the issue of gay/lesbian rights.

We can all play "issue politics" and argue that our pet oppression trumps every other, but it ain't cool and it doesn't get us anywhere.

Threetune

7th April 2012, 15:33

[QUOTE=Amal;2408279]
Kindly give me some clear account when it was legalized and when it was re-banned in USSR. QUOTE]

The first Soviet criminal code of 1922 and the revision of this code in1926 both confirmed the legality of voluntary same-sex relations. " The first state in history to do this.
Article 101 criminalised homosexuality with up to five years in prison in 1934.

So,legal for 12 Years. Is that clear now?

Amal

7th April 2012, 15:41

Feel free to start threads on these burning issues. You can even join in on the threads that do exist around women's rights and sex discrimination in the Discrimination forum. The lack of threads on the tragedy of honour killings probably reflects the ethnic mix of the users on RevLeft which is predominantly white, Western and male. However, this is no excuse for turning your back on the issue of gay/lesbian rights.

We can all play "issue politics" and argue that our pet oppression trumps every other, but it ain't cool and it doesn't get us anywhere.
If we really represent the workers, we should prioritize the issues. If everybody everybody here can prioritize on their own issues, which they think IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, that means petty-bourgeoisie individualism and nothing in connection to working class at all.

Amal

7th April 2012, 15:43

Kindly give me some clear account when it was legalized and when it was re-banned in USSR.

The first Soviet criminal code of 1922 and the revision of this code in1926 both confirmed the legality of voluntary same-sex relations. " The first state in history to do this.
Article 101 criminalised homosexuality with up to five years in prison in 1934.

So,legal for 12 Years. Is that clear now?
Any source please. What are the reasons behind the change? I also have another question on the thread, can you answer that?

Leftsolidarity

7th April 2012, 16:03

We, human beings have many other rights to think about than just the "gay rights" bro. To me, it's much down in my priority list. I will only think of them when the priorities above are all properly fulfilled. After all, you cannot eat the whole lunch in a single mouthful.

yeah, fuck you

Any source please. What are the reasons behind the change? I also have another question on the thread, can you answer that?

Pretty sure that has been talked about on every page of this thread and has been talked about from a number of sources. if you don't know the history of it and won't read the thread then shut up.

Amal

7th April 2012, 16:17

yeah, fuck you
Moderators, what kind of behavior is it? Why he isn't issued some warning?

Pretty sure that has been talked about on every page of this thread and has been talked about from a number of sources. if you don't know the history of it and won't read the thread then shut up.
What I have found on those "pages" are nothing but slandering and no proper justification of the steps. Just an issue to start "the evil Stalin ......". So, I myself don't want to give a shit to such things.

Leftsolidarity

7th April 2012, 17:00

Moderators, what kind of behavior is it? Why he isn't issued some warning?

:crying:

What I have found on those "pages" are nothing but slandering and no proper justification of the steps. Just an issue to start "the evil Stalin ......". So, I myself don't want to give a shit to such things.

No, now you've changed what you're talking about. You were asking for sources that it was legal in the USSR until Stalin was in power. That doesn't mean it was 100% Stalin's fault and I doubt anyone would say that. It means that under Stalin it became illegal again like in the Tsarist times. That's just history, not slander.

Amal

7th April 2012, 17:42

No, now you've changed what you're talking about. You were asking for sources that it was legal in the USSR until Stalin was in power. That doesn't mean it was 100% Stalin's fault and I doubt anyone would say that. It means that under Stalin it became illegal again like in the Tsarist times. That's just history, not slander.
I just want to know reasons other than "Stalin is homophobic" kind of callous slanders.

Hit The North

7th April 2012, 18:03

If we really represent the workers, we should prioritize the issues. If everybody everybody here can prioritize on their own issues, which they think IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, that means petty-bourgeoisie individualism and nothing in connection to working class at all.

Many workers (1 in 10?) are gay or lesbian so at least 10 per cent of the working class would benefit from the end of this oppression. Likewise, given that the working class represent the majority of the population, so they represent the majority of the gay and lesbian community, and so the majority of people who would benefit from the end of homophobia are workers. And isn't it our duty to stand up for the rights of workers?

So it is not true to say that these issues have nothing to do with the working class.

Of course, ending homophobia doesn't end capitalism (it would probably help to legitimate it in the minds of some) but neither does the formal equality of women or the ending of honour killings - the issues that you contend are more important or worthy than gay/lesbian rights).

Amal

7th April 2012, 18:48

Many workers (1 in 10?) are gay or lesbian so at least 10 per cent of the working class would benefit from the end of this oppression. Likewise, given that the working class represent the majority of the population, so they represent the majority of the gay and lesbian community, and so the majority of people who would benefit from the end of homophobia are workers. And isn't it our duty to stand up for the rights of workers?
What is the source of such an "information"? I am also curious to know how the survey has been conducted.
In contrary, honor killing violates the very basic rights of human existence and therefore 100% of workers can be involved in it. In short, I want to go for an issue that will involve 100% of workers than just 10% (even the best of possibilities).

Martin Blank

7th April 2012, 20:53

Ismail, most of the "Yeah, but..." responses I consider pretty irrelevant. Communism is not a religion, and there is no point to treating the works of Lenin or any other self-described communist thinker as gospel. It's the methodology of communism (materialist dialectics) and the actions self-described communists take that matters most. Marx was a racist, but that didn't stop him from calling for the abolition of slavery and the social equality of Africans, Irish, Indians, Native Americans, etc. So, no, I don't really care if Lenin was privately a homophobe; I am concerned with what the early Soviet republic practiced.

Illegalizing homosexuality was a backwards step. I don't think you'll find many people in the West, regardless of what "ism" of Communism they support, who would disagree with this. What some of those would disagree with is using this as some sort of "proof" about the USSR after Lenin being fundamentally evil or whatever.

I don't agree with moralism any more than I do exceptionalism. So, for me, I don't make my analysis of the USSR on the premise that it was either "good" or "evil". That's something I leave to the religious. For me, class is the determinant; in the case of the USSR, that means analyzing which class ruled. It is never about good or bad ideas.

Honestly, the more I read about Stalin, the more I see him as a character from a Greek tragedy ... much in the same vein as I see George W. Bush. He was placed in power by elements that knew he could be controlled through a carefully-crafted narrative and cherry-picked "facts" presented to him by his "experts". They could more or less anticipate his responses, and were able to both manipulate and implement them with great flexibility and ruthlessness. They knew they could get Stalin to take responsibility for everything that happened while he was in power, which meant they could pin on him all of the excesses and atrocities committed by the state after his death. In short, he was everything and nothing at the same time.

Martin Blank

7th April 2012, 21:03

What is the source of such an "information"? I am also curious to know how the survey has been conducted.
In contrary, honor killing violates the very basic rights of human existence and therefore 100% of workers can be involved in it. In short, I want to go for an issue that will involve 100% of workers than just 10% (even the best of possibilities).

The rights of LGBTQ people are something that involves all of the working class. This is because it is a matter of equal protection under the law (to use the American terminology). All citizens of the U.S. have the right to equal protection and equal access to public services. However, this basic right has been abridged through federal and state laws. If it is possible for the ruling classes to restrict the basic human, civil and democratic rights of a group of people, then the ruling classes also have the unimpeded right to restrict such rights for all people, especially all working people.

By your logic, fighting racism or women's oppression is also a waste of time because African Americans are only about 15% of the population and women are only 52%.

Omsk

7th April 2012, 21:29

Honestly, the more I read about Stalin, the more I see him as a character from a Greek tragedy ... much in the same vein as I see George W. Bush. He was placed in power by elements that knew he could be controlled through a carefully-crafted narrative and cherry-picked "facts" presented to him by his "experts". They could more or less anticipate his responses, and were able to both manipulate and implement them with great flexibility and ruthlessness. They knew they could get Stalin to take responsibility for everything that happened while he was in power, which meant they could pin on him all of the excesses and atrocities committed by the state after his death. In short, he was everything and nothing at the same time.

This is on the edge of being a silly conspiracy theory.

Seems you don't know too much about him after all.

Rafiq

7th April 2012, 21:33

This is on the edge of being a silly conspiracy theory.

Seems you don't know too much about him after all.

Yeah, Marxists are conspiracy theorists for knowing leaders are instruments of a class.

Omsk

7th April 2012, 21:36

Hit The North

7th April 2012, 21:51

What is the source of such an "information"? I am also curious to know how the survey has been conducted.

It's a general estimate that ten percent of the human population culd be designated as same-sex orientated. Here's an interesting page from Gallup on results in the United States: http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

In contrary, honor killing violates the very basic rights of human existence and therefore 100% of workers can be involved in it. In short, I want to go for an issue that will involve 100% of workers than just 10% (even the best of possibilities).

As Cthulhu points out, this would rule out defence of all kinds of minorities within the working class.

Threetune

8th April 2012, 00:06

The rights of LGBTQ people are something that involves all of the working class. This is because it is a matter of equal protection under the law (to use the American terminology). All citizens of the U.S. have the right to equal protection and equal access to public services. However, this basic right has been abridged through federal and state laws. If it is possible for the ruling classes to restrict the basic human, civil and democratic rights of a group of people, then the ruling classes also have the unimpeded right to restrict such rights for all people, especially all working people.

By your logic, fighting racism or women's oppression is also a waste of time because African Americans are only about 15% of the population and women are only 52%.

And ‘white people’ are only about 10% of the world population.

Rafiq

8th April 2012, 00:25

He was the instrument of a class when he was back in Georgia with a number of comrades trying to support the revolution?Well,maybe,he and the others in the party were the instruments of the working class.

He was an instrument of the Bourgeois class as soon as Russia became an agent of forfilling capital, i.e. The late twenties.

What, Mussolini was a socialist when he was younger... Who gives a fuck?

Ismail

8th April 2012, 00:33

He was an instrument of the Bourgeois class as soon as Russia became an agent of forfilling capital, i.e. The late twenties.Considering that managers didn't get any real autonomy to exert influence until the 50's and 60's, and that any other social force you could call "capitalist" involved Stalin (that is, the "Stalinist bureaucracy"), I don't see how this argument holds any water. Where was the Soviet bourgeoisie? Who was "guiding" Stalin? The only interest groups (the intelligentsia, managers, party cadre, party bosses, army) looked up to the Politburo and Central Committee. One would have to indeed look into those two Party organs for any "guiding," and that doesn't really work since basically any book or article about the subject generally goes along the lines of "and then Zhdanov/Molotov/Malenkov/Kaganovich/Khrushchev//Beria/etc. asked Stalin, who replied and settled the matter."

There were of course elements in the countryside like the kulaks whose interests were backed by Bukharin and other rightists, but they were destroyed as a class in the same period you describe. NEP was also ended soon after, and this in turn saw the removal of any significant small-scale enterprises in urban areas.

What, Mussolini was a socialist when he was younger... Who gives a fuck?Mussolini in his "socialist" days defended imperialist war, such as in the case of the Italian invasion of Libya, and was pretty obviously representative of a nationalist deviation within the Italian socialist movement. Stalin, by contrast, was a Bolshevik from the earliest days and had no notable divergences from the Bolshevik line.

bcbm

8th April 2012, 04:54

We, human beings have many other rights to think about than just the "gay rights" bro.

well i am sorry you are not capable of having more than one thought in your brain at a time

Zulu

8th April 2012, 05:15

Stalin received a report that there were "rings of pederasts" operating several hang-outs in Moscow and Leningrad and "corrupting healthy youths", including students and Red Army soldiers. So he decided to outlaw male homosexuality completely. Female homosexuality was never prosecuted or even campaigned against.

BTW, has anyone noticed how this topic is for some reason in the "Politics" subforum, and not in "History" where it belongs? That's right, when homosexuality is illegal, that's obviously bad, so Stalin, who outlawed it, was bad, and that's a matter of present day politics. The facts, that homosexuality was illegal almost EVERYWHERE AT THE TIME, and it's decriminalization in Soviet Russia between 1917 and 1934 are both beside the point, naturally.

Amal

8th April 2012, 06:02

well i am sorry you are not capable of having more than one thought in your brain at a time
Yes I can't, because such issues are burning issues before me. When you are starved, your only thought would be food and nothing other than that. When you have a full stomach, then and then only you will be capable of thinking of issues, THAT'S PRIORITIZATION.
At least, I am not capable of thinking about gay rights while my very basic right to choose someone as my partner (with her permission) is in danger.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

8th April 2012, 11:59

What can you expect when they kept aside real issues like sex discrimination, honor killing, women's rights and take those worthless sideline issues like "gay/lesbian right" just to vomit some personal slander on Stalin, Mao and ....
LGBT rights are women's rights, as women can be lesbian, bisexual, and trans. The same societies that practice honor killings would kill openly LGBT people. How do you not see all of that as connected?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

8th April 2012, 12:00

At least, I am not capable of thinking about gay rights while my very basic right to choose someone as my partner (with her permission) is in danger.
And yet I as an LGBT person can think about your rights, too.

Crux

8th April 2012, 13:40

Has anyone called out amal on comparing bestiality and homosexuality yet?

Amal

8th April 2012, 15:00

LGBT rights are women's rights, as women can be lesbian, bisexual, and trans. The same societies that practice honor killings would kill openly LGBT people. How do you not see all of that as connected?
If so, then first fight for the basic human rights i.e. the right to choose one as per mutual consensus. Why gay/lesbian rights become a separate issue?

Amal

8th April 2012, 15:03

And yet I as an LGBT person can think about your rights, too.
I don't care about what LGBT persons think about my rights. I first to want to establish my own and I know that I belong to the majority.

Aurora

8th April 2012, 15:08

Has anyone called out amal on comparing bestiality and homosexuality yet?
I don't think so, i thought this was another gem too, homosexual acts are more common among people of the same sex therefore pedophilia, can't fault that logic. :rolleyes:

Basically, homosexuality was very much common among soldiers, group of workers etc in short, where a big group of males had been gathered for any purpose. I have doubt that in those cases, whether homosexuality was an outcome of natural tendencies or an outburst of lack of sex as very few, almost nil women can be found nearby. Therefore, it isn't very amazing that it was often looked at something related to pedophilia.

Amal

8th April 2012, 15:11

Has anyone called out amal on comparing bestiality and homosexuality yet?
Why I can't do that? After all, it's a matter of personal choice. Advocates against "animal cruelty" can tell that on behalf of animals here.

Amal

8th April 2012, 15:15

I don't think so, i thought this was another gem too, homosexual acts are more common among people of the same sex therefore pedophilia, can't fault that logic. :rolleyes:
Recent studies showed that homosexual acts are common in jails in India between male inmates. There are accounts of homosexuality often observed in soldiers during the camping period. What's the reason you think?

Leftsolidarity

8th April 2012, 15:16

Restriction maybe? He's getting on my nerves.

Amal

8th April 2012, 15:23

Restriction maybe? He's getting on my nerves.
Then better stay away. What a wonderful "leftist"? Who want to restrict the opposition in a "Stalinist" way while vomiting "anti-Stalin" venom everywhere. This thread actually shows your real character.
When you "liberals" faced some strong challenge, the "liberalism" just takes the backseat.

Aurora

8th April 2012, 15:29

Why I can't do that? After all, it's a matter of personal choice.
No it's not, did you and do you choose to be heterosexual? tomorrow can you choose to be gay?

What's the reason you think?
It's not relevant, the point is i don't think theres anything wrong with consensual acts between people.
Tell me, are you denying that there are people who are attracted to the same sex?
That's the only reason i can see for bringing up prisons the military etc it seems like your trying to make homosexuality a choice of circumstance rather than a natural part of human sexual attraction.

Amal

8th April 2012, 15:43

No it's not, did you and do you choose to be heterosexual? tomorrow can you choose to be gay?
I have talked about choosing sex partners, not on the type of relationship. In fact, if you ask me, it's certainly a matter of choice. Being a male, if I choose a woman, I am heterosexual and if I choose a man, I am homosexual. The matter what I choose is a totally different issue.

It's not relevant, the point is i don't think theres anything wrong with consensual acts between people.
Tell me, are you denying that there are people who are attracted to the same sex?
That's the only reason i can see for bringing up prisons the military etc it seems like your trying to make homosexuality a choice of circumstance rather than a natural part of human sexual attraction.
Why not? There is certainly some reasons there.
I have said that homosexuality is often (not always) choice of circumstances. I hope you can differ between that. Certainly there can be people who can be attracted towards same sex like people who can be attracted towards animals and there are many such tendencies exist today. I first want to be focused on the general and much more common points first and special cases later, that's my view.

Leftsolidarity

8th April 2012, 16:35

Then better stay away. What a wonderful "leftist"? Who want to restrict the opposition in a "Stalinist" way while vomiting "anti-Stalin" venom everywhere. This thread actually shows your real character.
When you "liberals" faced some strong challenge, the "liberalism" just takes the backseat.

I haven't really said much about Stalin at all. I don't like him but I don't play him out to be the boogie man.

I'm a liberal because I support LGBT rights? I'm a LGBT person of chorse I care about my fucking rights dumbass.

I saided that maybe you should be restricted because you're obviously anti-LGBT and (if not homophobic) heterosexist.

In short, I think you're little better than the other homophobe from this thread that was just banned.

Amal

8th April 2012, 16:42

I haven't really said much about Stalin at all. I don't like him but I don't play him out to be the boogie man.

I'm a liberal because I support LGBT rights? I'm a LGBT person of choice I care about my fucking rights dumbass.

I saided that maybe you should be restricted because you're obviously anti-LGBT and (if not homophobic) heterosexist.

In short, I think you're little better than the other homophobe from this thread that was just banned.
I also care about my fucking basic rights too and it makes me angry when a huge lot of resources are wasted just for the sake of 10% while the rest still deprived of many rights.
I don't fucking care what LGBT people want to do and their supporters support them. I want my rights to established first, the very basic rights of all humanity.
Why don't make a separate website or thread and accumulate all LGBT supporters there and exchange all your shits there. I don't want to go there to disturb and being disturbed.

Leftsolidarity

8th April 2012, 16:49

I also care about my fucking basic rights too and it makes me angry when a huge lot of resources are wasted just for the sake of 10% while the rest still deprived of many rights.
I don't fucking care what LGBT people want to do and their supporters support them. I want my rights to established first, the very basic rights of all humanity.
Why don't make a separate website or thread and accumulate all LGBT supporters there and exchange all your shits there. I don't want to go there to disturb and being disturbed.

This post in summary:

I don't support LGBT rights.

LGBT people should leave this website.

Martin Blank

8th April 2012, 18:04

This is on the edge of being a silly conspiracy theory.

Seems you don't know too much about him after all.

As Rafiq pointed out, it's not about a conspiracy, but how Stalin was a creature of the class that ruled the USSR from the early 1920s on (the petty bourgeoisie). And just so you're aware, what I've been reading about Stalin lately are the writings of pro-Stalin authors like Grover Furr. So if you want to blame someone, blame him.

Who was "guiding" Stalin? The only interest groups (the intelligentsia, managers, party cadre, party bosses, army) looked up to the Politburo and Central Committee.

In the party-state structure that emerged in the USSR, it is understandable that the PB and CC would be at the top of the hierarchical pyramid. That said, those so-called "interest groups" were, in fact, constituent elements of the ruling class in the USSR, along with the party and state functionaries, Soviet officials and sub-officials, etc. They all looked up to the highest bodies of the AUCP(b), but also knew those bodies could be manipulated and "guided" into making decisions in the best interests of the class in power. No surprise, given the tsarist origins of much of the Soviet state and governmental apparatus.

One would have to indeed look into those two Party organs for any "guiding," and that doesn't really work since basically any book or article about the subject generally goes along the lines of "and then Zhdanov/Molotov/Malenkov/Kaganovich/Khrushchev/Beria/etc. asked Stalin, who replied and settled the matter."

Yes, Stalin was "the decider", much like Dubya. But his decisions were made based on the selective use of facts that fit the viewpoint of the state and class that ruled. He was, at once, manipulated and anticipated. If the ruling class in the USSR wanted a specific decision to be made, they knew how to make it happen. This is really no different than how other heads of state are manipulated by the ruling class (or classes) into making decisions in their interests (e.g., Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam).

Hit The North

8th April 2012, 19:01

Yes, Stalin was "the decider", much like Dubya. But his decisions were made based on the selective use of facts that fit the viewpoint of the state and class that ruled. He was, at once, manipulated and anticipated. If the ruling class in the USSR wanted a specific decision to be made, they knew how to make it happen. This is really no different than how other heads of state are manipulated by the ruling class (or classes) into making decisions in their interests (e.g., Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam).

This is plausible but some empirical evidence is necessary. Who represented the ruling class in Russia that manipulated Stalin? It seems to me that in the case of the USSR the ruling party and the ruling class were practically indistinguishable and Stalin's absolute control over the party made him more than a simple dupe of ruling class intrigue and decision making. Wasn't he at the centre of these mechanisms? Wasn't his rule defined by the way he exterminated rival political and economic threats (technocrats, Old Bolsheviks, army generals)? The American presidents you cite as comparisons certainly didn't have the executive power of Stalin and were not able to rule on the basis of fear in the way that Stalin could.

Personally I prefer the notion that Marx and Engels sometimes used, of history happening behind the backs of the social agents who carry it out. It was the logic of accumulation that drove the policies and attitudes, and the intrigue of shadowy ruling interests, often ideologically scrambled, was secondary.

As Rosa Luxemburg stated, events have their own logic even when people do not.

Zulu

8th April 2012, 19:36

It has been established that the main source of Stalin's power was his ability to appoint party cadres to secondary positions that were not even formally electable under the Party regulations. After elimination of his main political rivals (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin), that is by the end of the 1920s, he had to maintain sort of balance between the several "clans" of people he promoted. Of course, they also had influence on him, for example, male homosexuality might have never been outlawed if Yagoda - then People's Commissar of Internal Affairs did not brought the matter to Stalin's attention. Yagoda's interest could have been strictly "professional", as the new measure could not but be selectively enforced, and provided the operatives the leverage to recruit informants among gays.

But Stalin definitely had his own perspective at all times as regards to where the Soviet Unions must be taken in terms of political and economic development and used his power to push on with it.

bcbm

8th April 2012, 19:44

Yes I can't, because such issues are burning issues before me. When you are starved, your only thought would be food and nothing other than that. When you have a full stomach, then and then only you will be capable of thinking of issues, THAT'S PRIORITIZATION.
At least, I am not capable of thinking about gay rights while my very basic right to choose someone as my partner (with her permission) is in danger.

gay people are often denied the right to choose someone as their partner too. maybe these struggles are related?:rolleyes:

Rafiq

8th April 2012, 22:16

gay people are often denied the right to choose someone as their partner too. maybe these struggles are related?:rolleyes:

The LGBT rights struggle can very well be called just as much as a Racial rights or Feminine struggle, a struggle of the proletariat. So long as there are proletarians whom are persecuted for their sexual orientation, we as communists will take up there banner.

And yes, it's just as important as any struggle. LGTB rights are not like the "Bestiality/Incest" struggle, it's not some Postmodern Fukoyama Leftist programme, it's very relavent.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

8th April 2012, 22:38

I don't fucking care what LGBT people want to do and their supporters support them. I want my rights to established first, the very basic rights of all humanity.
LGBT rights are very basic rights of all humanity, the right to have consensual relationships and the right to control one's body.

Omsk

8th April 2012, 22:53

As Rafiq pointed out, it's not about a conspiracy, but how Stalin was a creature of the class that ruled the USSR from the early 1920s on (the petty bourgeoisie).

Where was this class?How did it manifest it's influence,how did it grow,what were it's numbers,how did it function,what did it own?Hard to answer,because there was no such class,just as the kulak class was not a real class,objectively.And how did you proclaim that the USSR was ruled by this class,from lets,say,1921,or 1922,or 1923?

And just so you're aware, what I've been reading about Stalin lately are the writings of pro-Stalin authors like Grover Furr. So if you want to blame someone, blame him.

I doubt you could find his theories about Stalin being an agent of the petty bourgeoisie of the USSR.However,if there are such claims,link it to me.

Bostana

8th April 2012, 23:02

Restriction maybe? He's getting on my nerves.

Find a better reason, maybe?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

8th April 2012, 23:09

Find a better reason, maybe?
He's a reactionary. Better?

Per Levy

8th April 2012, 23:17

I want my rights to established first, the very basic rights of all humanity.

if someone would take away your right to choose your partner, to live with you partner and on top of that getting harrassed because of your sexuality, would you not call that a breach of your basic human rights?

or see it that way, the lgbt struggle for equality is in the end interlinked with the liberation of the proletariat, cause true equality will only come through a proletarian revolution.

Bostana

8th April 2012, 23:20

He's a reactionary. Better?

That's a better reason then because "he is under your skin"
:lol:

Vanguard1917

8th April 2012, 23:39

Homosexuality was attacked under Stalin for the same reason that it is attacked by bourgeois regimes - it was seen as an affront to the institution of the family, which the Stalinist bureaucracy made it a policy to reinforce during the intensely reactionary period of the 1930s in Russia. Hence abortion was also criminalised, divorce was made more difficult and the conception of woman as baby factory was reinstated.

Martin Blank

9th April 2012, 00:46

This is plausible but some empirical evidence is necessary....

Certainly. My comment on Stalin that started this sub-thread was never meant to be seen as anything more than an assertion based on some cursory reading of the internal machinations of the Soviet leadership as outlined by Furr. Since I am wedded to neither Stalin nor Trotsky on the "Russian Question", I have the luxury of being able to measure from both ends. There may come a point when I decide to research this part of Soviet history deeper -- perhaps when I have time and I'm not up to my ears in Party activity and administration. Until then, it's all a case of "take it for what it is".

Martin Blank

9th April 2012, 00:52

Where was this class? How did it manifest it's influence, how did it grow, what were it's numbers, how did it function, what did it own? Hard to answer, because there was no such class, just as the kulak class was not a real class, objectively.

Either ask me a question or don't. I really find it annoying when someone asks a series of pointed questions, then answers it with a completely ignorant and ahistorical argument.

And how did you proclaim that the USSR was ruled by this class, from let's say, 1921, or 1922, or 1923?

I doubt you actually want an answer to this. I think you just forgot to tack on another of your own pithy answers, like you did above.

I doubt you could find his theories about Stalin being an agent of the petty bourgeoisie of the USSR. However, if there are such claims, link it to me.

I never claimed that Furr made that argument. That would make him a much better analyst than he actually is. If you were confused by that, my apologies.

Amal

9th April 2012, 03:31

He's a reactionary. Better?
Who has given him right to judge? Is he officially appointed as the head of "scrutiny committee" on this site?

The Jay

9th April 2012, 03:51

Who has given him right to judge? Is he officially appointed as the head of "scrutiny committee" on this site?

Doesn't everyone have a right to voice their opinion?

Geiseric

9th April 2012, 04:50

Wait wait wait, I haven't seen the old "Stalin didn't know about it," line. Amazing.

Woodsman

9th April 2012, 04:59

Castro also claimed to have wiped out homosexuality after the Cuban Revolution. Back then it was considered a psychological disorder by most of the medical establishment.

Crux

9th April 2012, 08:32

Wait wait wait, I haven't seen the old "Stalin didn't know about it," line. Amazing.
haven't you heard ? It was a conspiracy of homosexual pederasts allied with hitler and capitalism aiming to bring down the soviet state. I wish I was making that up, but in this instance I trust Ismail knows his stuff.

Omsk

9th April 2012, 10:00

Either ask me a question or don't. I really find it annoying when someone asks a serious of pointed questions, then answers it with a completely ignorant and ahistorical argument.

Well,you were suggesting that the controlling circles that put him into power (These circles were the the Bolsheviks,the Bolshevik party and the people.) somehow also knew that he would face great problems,and that he would be,one day,the most capable politician and man in the USSR,and that is just speculation and hypothetical arguments.Because,he was in 'power' (The definitio of power is a broad one.) from the early days of the revolution and the Civil War,it can be said that the argument that Stalin was placed in power to somehow take the blame (There is no blame,because there were no errors.) for decisions and acts,does not make much sense,because if these circles you are talking about,would have used the tactic you described on Lenin,and not Stalin.

And if you want to argue that such a process happened during the later years of his life,when he was older and more experienced,is also,very problematic.He was known for his strong will,intelligence,and his leading skills,so i doubt he was 'influenced' or 'controlled' by some people.

The fact that he knew to ignore false praise and 'constructed' praise shows that he was not the man to be controlled with ease.

...Stalin is quick to detect false praise from the genuine article. No one indulged in more extravagant flattery than Zinoviev and Kamenev. Each time they were caught out in treachery, they burst into paeans of praise in order (as Zinoviev put it) "to crawl back into the party on our bellies." They were even foolish enough to imagine that, because Stalin forgave them time after time, they were successfully hoodwinking him. It needed the Treason Trials of 1936 to 1938 to show them the real truth.
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 92

The argument you constructed can be used,for the later leaders of the CCCP,the revisionist figures,that were,for what we know as a fact,influenced by the people in the shadows,namely,Mikhail Suslov.You should concentrate on that,as that can be more than a hypothetical/borderline conspiracy theory. You could follow my advice on that,it would be a much more realistic and objectively possible theory.

I never claimed that Furr made that argument. That would make him a much better analyst than he actually is. If you were confused by that, my apologies.

Well,there are many other historians alongside Grover Furr,and there are a lot of others who are on the other side of the Stalin debate,that you could read.I do not understand why did you mention him specifically.I read from various historians,from Trotskyists,to the pro-Stalin ones,and i won't dismiss your arguments if you don't include an 'I read the works of pro-Stalin types also' or something similar.

While i have a clear opinion on Stalin,that does not mean i am deaf to everything but the works that support my arguments,in fact,i like to read from all the viewpoints,but,its obvious that i don't agree with them.

Amal

9th April 2012, 16:34

Doesn't everyone have a right to voice their opinion?
Howling to ban someone is "expressing opinions"! Wonderful, why not racists, fascists should have been given the right to "express their opinion"?

Rafiq

9th April 2012, 16:44

Considering that managers didn't get any real autonomy to exert influence until the 50's and 60's, and that any other social force you could call "capitalist" involved Stalin (that is, the "Stalinist bureaucracy"), I don't see how this argument holds any water.

Indeed, managers were able to exert autonomy as early as the 1930's.

And, even if they didn't, we as Marxists never classify the capitalist mode of production as the kind of "Autonomy" the managers recieve. Indeed, even if the Managers received full autnomy and workers had no say in anything, it is still possible that this type of mode of production could exist external from the capitalist mode of production. What defines capitalism is not about "Lack of Workers control" or "Managers controlling everything". It is about capital controlling everything. And in the Soviet Union, since the very beggining of it's existence, capital had begun to slowly devour the revolution. It was not until 1965 until capital had no more limits, though, you could hardly account for this being because "Bhreznev" or "Revisionism". Had Stalin lived until 1980, the Soviet Union more or less economically would have looked identical to what it actually did look like.

Where was the Soviet bourgeoisie? Who was "guiding" Stalin? The only interest groups (the intelligentsia, managers, party cadre, party bosses, army) looked up to the Politburo and Central Committee.

The existence of a Soviet Bourgeoisie is very debatable, though, we do know that the state served as an agent of for filling the hunger of capital. As Cthulhu pointed out, Stalin was largely almost always manipulated in his decisions to serve the Soviet petty bourgeoisie.

One would have to indeed look into those two Party organs for any "guiding," and that doesn't really work since basically any book or article about the subject generally goes along the lines of "and then Zhdanov/Molotov/Malenkov/Kaganovich/Khrushchev//Beria/etc. asked Stalin, who replied and settled the matter."

Again, he was manipulated, perhaps not directly "Guided".

There were of course elements in the countryside like the kulaks whose interests were backed by Bukharin and other rightists, but they were destroyed as a class in the same period you describe.

The definition of a Kulak is unscientific in nature. Petty Bourgoeis is petty Bourgeois.

NEP was also ended soon after, and this in turn saw the removal of any significant small-scale enterprises in urban areas.

The remnants of the NEP were never put to an end, as Foreign buisness and large scale enterprises continued to exist throughout the Soviet Union. The existence of the capitalist mode of production prevailed.

Mussolini in his "socialist" days defended imperialist war, such as in the case of the Italian invasion of Libya, and was pretty obviously representative of a nationalist deviation within the Italian socialist movement. Stalin, by contrast, was a Bolshevik from the earliest days and had no notable divergences from the Bolshevik line.

So, you don't think it's possible for a Socialist to have a shift in class character? It doesn't matter what Stalin was before the Bolshevik Revolution, in the end, he would have became an agent of capital, regardless of his most admirable revolutionary past.

Leftsolidarity

9th April 2012, 17:32

Howling to ban someone is "expressing opinions"! Wonderful, why not racists, fascists should have been given the right to "express their opinion"?

Why should we give bigoted reactionaries the ability to "express their opinions"?

hint: I'm talking about you

Amal

9th April 2012, 18:08

Why should we give bigoted reactionaries the ability to "express their opinions"?
hint: I'm talking about you
Who had given you the right to determine what is "reactionary" and what is "progressive"?
Hint: I am trying to insert something in your solid head.

Ostrinski

9th April 2012, 18:13

Who had given you the right to determine what is "reactionary" and what is "progressive"?Board policy fool

Amal

9th April 2012, 18:30

Board policy fool
Which board policy asshole? Just howling about anything and concluding to "the Evil Stalin .......". If so, I just want to f... that policy.

NewLeft

9th April 2012, 18:33

Which board policy asshole? Just howling about anything and concluding to "the Evil Stalin .......". If so, I just want to f... that policy.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules

Ismail

9th April 2012, 18:43

haven't you heard ? It was a conspiracy of homosexual pederasts allied with hitler and capitalism aiming to bring down the soviet state. I wish I was making that up, but in this instance I trust Ismail knows his stuff.I don't know anything about homosexual conspiracies. Nice try though.

Indeed, managers were able to exert autonomy as early as the 1930's.... and were put in line during the purges when they tended to be targeted by workers. One work which details the expanded role of managers from the 50's onwards is Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR by M. Nicolaus, see: http://marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html

It is about capital controlling everything. And in the Soviet Union, since the very beggining of it's existence, capital had begun to slowly devour the revolution. It was not until 1965 until capital had no more limits, though, you could hardly account for this being because "Bhreznev" or "Revisionism". Had Stalin lived until 1980, the Soviet Union more or less economically would have looked identical to what it actually did look like.That's just speculation, and rather unfounded considering that Stalin explicitly denounced the idea of disbanding machine-tractor stations (which was done under Khrushchev, and thus ballooned commodity relations in the countryside), was opposed to having profit be the main indicator of success for enterprises, and had envisioned things like products-exchange taking the place of commodity production in the countryside.

The existence of a Soviet Bourgeoisie is very debatable, though, we do know that the state served as an agent of for filling the hunger of capital. As Cthulhu pointed out, Stalin was largely almost always manipulated in his decisions to serve the Soviet petty bourgeoisie.Are there any actual examples of this? Like, during the purges people obviously presented distorted figures and glorious news of supposed saboteurs and such being shot, but many of those who did this were themselves shot or removed from their posts after Yezhov's downfall (as Robert Thurston notes in Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia.)

The definition of a Kulak is unscientific in nature. Petty Bourgoeis is petty Bourgeois.Well if whatever the kulaks were were petty-bourgeois, I think it's safe to say that in any case they didn't exist in the countryside. If by petty-bourgeois you mean tiny individual peasant landholdings, they were pretty much irrelevant to the economy by the beginning of WWII (W.H. Chamberlin says that 0.6% of peasant land was privately farmed in 1939, The Russian Enigma, p. 160.)

The remnants of the NEP were never put to an end, as Foreign buisness and large scale enterprises continued to exist throughout the Soviet Union. The existence of the capitalist mode of production prevailed.They grew from the 1960's onwards, but their influence after the NEP period was scant. Again, to quote Chamberlin, "The Soviet Government granted some concessions, or leases for the development of production enterprises, to foreign firms during the twenties. But these were practically all liquidated during the first Five Year Plan." (p. 168.) They did not play any leading role in the economy.

As for Mussolini, the only point I was making was that he was always a reactionary.

Ostrinski

9th April 2012, 18:44

Which board policy asshole? Just howling about anything and concluding to "the Evil Stalin .......". If so, I just want to f... that policy.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrulesSee 'Discriminatory Language'

Desperado

9th April 2012, 18:50

Because he thought is was Western "Bourgeois Decadence." When socialism was built he thought it would go away but when it didn't he brought back the repressive Tsarist laws.

Here's the really short answer: Stalin was a homophobe.

As true as these answers are on a simple ideological level, neither answer it with a more useful Marxist class analysis - ideologies as an inflection of class struggle.

The more revealing answer is that homophobia is useful for maintaining the class status quo. A proletariat in which a narrow straight (and often white) male identity is fetishised and deviance punished is easier to control. It creates an image around which the nation (as a false community of class collaboration) can be defined and divides the mass of workers. What is interesting is how workers' movements have quite often latched onto this excluding label, to the benefit of our masters.

Desperado

9th April 2012, 18:54

or see it that way, the lgbt struggle for equality is in the end interlinked with the liberation of the proletariat, cause true equality will only come through a proletarian revolution.

Indeed, and likewise will the proletarian revolution only come with other social inequalities ending. The workers must unite before they can conquer. The one extreme is detaching gender, race and lgbt issues from struggling against capital - identity politics and bourgeois feminism. But too often leftists go to the other extreme - it is seen as an issue of "revolution first; women's equality, lgbt rights, ending racism after".

It's not a case of one issue having dominance over another - they are one and the same. Struggling against homophobia is struggling against capital.

Amal

9th April 2012, 19:05

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules
Are you the guide for this website? Sorry, I don't need you. Me alone can do that.
Whether you want to mold the policies as per your view? I want to be cleared about that from moderators.

Leftsolidarity

9th April 2012, 20:40

Are you the guide for this website? Sorry, I don't need you. Me alone can do that.
Whether you want to mold the policies as per your view? I want to be cleared about that from moderators.

Maybe you don't understand because you just joined this forum. We don't like homophobes. They aren't welcome. That would mean you and your anti-LGBT views are not welcome.

Amal

10th April 2012, 03:45

Maybe you don't understand because you just joined this forum. We don't like homophobes. They aren't welcome. That would mean you and your anti-LGBT views are not welcome.
Again, who are you to announce one behalf of "we". Secondly, like a judge, you are calling me homophobe. To me LGBT rights are of secondary and least importance and such matters are often to start some kind of personal slandering.

Valdyr

10th April 2012, 03:56

Amal

10th April 2012, 06:34

Desperado has said almost everything I have to say about the original question, but to those who like to say that LGBT struggles are secondary to the class struggle, it isn't a matter of those of use who are passionate about these causes of them being an equal concern to the class struggle. Rather, the LGBT struggle is the class struggle, as sexuality is one of the ways that ruling class ideology divides the workers. I'd also argue that sexual repression in general is a powerful method of control, but that's a separate conversation.
As far as I know, class struggle means struggle to take the control of production and economy and abolition of the oppressor class and at the end removal of the classbased society. There are many factors that divide workers, not only LGBT rights, but also race, religion. YOU CANNOT FIGHT ON ALL THE FRONTS TOGETHER AND HAVE TO CHOOSE ON PRIORITY BASIS. Starting to fight on all fronts means loosing everywhere. First, choose to concentrate on prime focus and then pinpoint the attack there, THAT'S BASIC WAR STRATEGY and is certainly applicable here.

Leftsolidarity

10th April 2012, 06:48

Amal

10th April 2012, 09:23

No it's not. Stfu.
That's your opinion, not general. I am not interested in your opinion. Probably many others too.

Crux

10th April 2012, 13:01

Are you the guide for this website? Sorry, I don't need you. Me alone can do that.
Whether you want to mold the policies as per your view? I want to be cleared about that from moderators.
I may only be a lowly language forum mod, but you are walking a fine line...comrade. And so far you've not been very receptive either.

Valdyr

10th April 2012, 16:10

As far as I know, class struggle means struggle to take the control of production and economy and abolition of the oppressor class and at the end removal of the classbased society. There are many factors that divide workers, not only LGBT rights, but also race, religion. YOU CANNOT FIGHT ON ALL THE FRONTS TOGETHER AND HAVE TO CHOOSE ON PRIORITY BASIS. Starting to fight on all fronts means loosing everywhere. First, choose to concentrate on prime focus and then pinpoint the attack there, THAT'S BASIC WAR STRATEGY and is certainly applicable here.

You don't really seem to be taking the criticisms directed at your position to heart. It isn't a matter of choosing. No one is suggesting that we abandon the class struggle in favor of LGBT rights, as bourgeois activists do, by isolating the issues from one another. They are one and the same. No one is saying that all comrades should specialize in LGBT rights, but its an integral part of the program. If sexual discrimination is used to divide and control the proletariat, and you are fighting against sexual discrimination and control, it shouldn't be hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Not to mention that on a very concrete, practical level, solidarity between the workers and the LGBT community has been very productive. Look no further than the Coors boycott in the 1970s, where the LGBT community and the Teamsters union worked together in solidarity against the vicious anti-worker policies of that company.

Amal

10th April 2012, 17:09

You don't really seem to be taking the criticisms directed at your position to heart. It isn't a matter of choosing. No one is suggesting that we abandon the class struggle in favor of LGBT rights, as bourgeois activists do, by isolating the issues from one another. They are one and the same. No one is saying that all comrades should specialize in LGBT rights, but its an integral part of the program. If sexual discrimination is used to divide and control the proletariat, and you are fighting against sexual discrimination and control, it shouldn't be hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Not to mention that on a very concrete, practical level, solidarity between the workers and the LGBT community has been very productive. Look no further than the Coors boycott in the 1970s, where the LGBT community and the Teamsters union worked together in solidarity against the vicious anti-worker policies of that company.
Man, class struggle is a very broad field and include many many factors. But, our own ability is limited and therefore we have prioritize issues. In short, we don't have enough resource to fight for all the issues here.
I have my own priorities based on my surroundings, if I have been criticized for that. I am helpless.

Valdyr

10th April 2012, 18:03

Man, class struggle is a very broad field and include many many factors. But, our own ability is limited and therefore we have prioritize issues. In short, we don't have enough resource to fight for all the issues here.
I have my own priorities based on my surroundings, if I have been criticized for that. I am helpless.

Nobody is criticizing you individually for prioritizing, we all have to do that. What we're reacting to are

1. Your suggestion that the whole movement needs to "prioritize," seemingly according to your priorities, and

2. The degree of insistence which you put upon it, which makes it hard to believe that this isn't at some level an effort to marginalize LGBT people.

Amal

10th April 2012, 18:51

Nobody is criticizing you individually for prioritizing, we all have to do that. What we're reacting to are

1. Your suggestion that the whole movement needs to "prioritize," seemingly according to your priorities, and
The movement should be prioritize based on the need of maximum, plain and simple.

2. The degree of insistence which you put upon it, which makes it hard to believe that this isn't at some level an effort to marginalize LGBT people.
If giving comparatively less importance means marginalizing, them I want to say that I have no alternative at present regarding the present social conditions around me.
I personally don't want to disturb LGBT people and think that it's their own right to live their life on their way. But, on the other hand, I have more important issues to focus on other than standing beside them.

Desperado

10th April 2012, 20:53

Man, class struggle is a very broad field and include many many factors. But, our own ability is limited and therefore we have prioritize issues. In short, we don't have enough resource to fight for all the issues here.
I have my own priorities based on my surroundings, if I have been criticized for that. I am helpless.

That's because you're looking at it backwards. We don't fight the class struggle, the working class does. And they do have the power to overturn social relations. Maybe you've forgotten that.

Oh, and the working class has that power because they recreate those social relations everyday. Just like you are with your homophobia here and now.

Amal

11th April 2012, 01:55

That's because you're looking at it backwards. We don't fight the class struggle, the working class does. And they do have the power to overturn social relations. Maybe you've forgotten that.
I consider myself to be a part of working class, not something outside.

Oh, and the working class has that power because they recreate those social relations everyday. Just like you are with your homophobia here and now.
Working class has different duties depending on priorities on the basis of ground reality. Those who are searching for "phobics" better sell their ideology to another market.

Leftsolidarity

11th April 2012, 02:34

I have more important issues to focus on other than standing beside them.

This. Who is that "them"? LGBT people? You don't want to stand beside (lets use me as an example since I'm typing this comment) me as an LGBT person? Would you stand beside me as a member of the working class?

Well guess what? I'm fucking both!

To walk away when I'm (and all LGBT people) are trying to fight for my rights, you walk away from the working class and its struggle. LGBT people are part of the working class and they are a specifically targeted and oppressed community inside of the working class.

Just like members of the oppressed black/latino communities probably won't give a shit about what you're saying if you also aren't talking about fighting racism, members of the LGBT community probably won't care all that much about what your saying if you aren't also talking about sexual liberation.

Should we disregard the fight against racism too? How about sexism? Hell, fuck all oppressed communities so we can just focus on this generalized, now empty, statement of "working class liberation".

We are all still members of the working class. Some of us also belong to targeted and oppressed communities and those issues need to be dealt with as well, not pushed aside.

Union

11th April 2012, 02:36

Yeh, sooo a being s drug addict is a commodity now? Maybe it's illegal for a drug lord to own a drug addict for slavery so they can cultivate their opium poppies.

"Come on now, drug addicts should be more legal than the homosexuals"

Just thought i'd throw in some irony and contradiction to that weird use of English.

Leftsolidarity

11th April 2012, 02:36

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

First sentences of the second chapter of The Communist Manifesto deals with this.

Amal

11th April 2012, 03:33

This. Who is that "them"? LGBT people? You don't want to stand beside (lets use me as an example since I'm typing this comment) me as an LGBT person? Would you stand beside me as a member of the working class?

Well guess what? I'm fucking both!

To walk away when I'm (and all LGBT people) are trying to fight for my rights, you walk away from the working class and its struggle. LGBT people are part of the working class and they are a specifically targeted and oppressed community inside of the working class.

Just like members of the oppressed black/latino communities probably won't give a shit about what you're saying if you also aren't talking about fighting racism, members of the LGBT community probably won't care all that much about what your saying if you aren't also talking about sexual liberation.

Should we disregard the fight against racism too? How about sexism? Hell, fuck all oppressed communities so we can just focus on this generalized, now empty, statement of "working class liberation".

We are all still members of the working class. Some of us also belong to targeted and oppressed communities and those issues need to be dealt with as well, not pushed aside.
Your howling reminds me words of Lenin. He opposed banning of religious minded people from party as that means keeping a huge lot of workers outside party. But, at the same time, he advised to take cautious steps in this regard. His basic formulation is when you enter the party, your first identity should be as a worker and keep the religious and other identities outside door.
If you consider yourself a worker and LGBT together, there is no problem. But, the main point which identity you want to put first, the LGBT identity or the worker identity. They cannot always stay side by side.

Leftsolidarity

11th April 2012, 04:42

Your howling reminds me words of Lenin. He opposed banning of religious minded people from party as that means keeping a huge lot of workers outside party. But, at the same time, he advised to take cautious steps in this regard. His basic formulation is when you enter the party, your first identity should be as a worker and keep the religious and other identities outside door.
If you consider yourself a worker and LGBT together, there is no problem. But, the main point which identity you want to put first, the LGBT identity or the worker identity. They cannot always stay side by side.

We all belong to the broad working class. Some of us belong to specially oppressed communities and those issues need to be dealt with. I don't see how you aren't understanding this.

RedAnarchist

11th April 2012, 12:15

I have talked about choosing sex partners, not on the type of relationship. In fact, if you ask me, it's certainly a matter of choice. Being a male, if I choose a woman, I am heterosexual and if I choose a man, I am homosexual. The matter what I choose is a totally different issue.

Why not? There is certainly some reasons there.
I have said that homosexuality is often (not always) choice of circumstances. I hope you can differ between that. Certainly there can be people who can be attracted towards same sex like people who can be attracted towards animals and there are many such tendencies exist today. I first want to be focused on the general and much more common points first and special cases later, that's my view.

You have been infracted for this post.

I also care about my fucking basic rights too and it makes me angry when a huge lot of resources are wasted just for the sake of 10% while the rest still deprived of many rights.
I don't fucking care what LGBT people want to do and their supporters support them. I want my rights to established first, the very basic rights of all humanity.
Why don't make a separate website or thread and accumulate all LGBT supporters there and exchange all your shits there. I don't want to go there to disturb and being disturbed.

And you're banned for this one.