Is the Corparatization of LGBT politcs:good or bad

[Tolstoy]

The GLBT movement has become very mainstream and very popular over the last ten years. This is excellent news as more and more states establish legalized gay marriage and anti discrimination laws, and awesome people like George Takei coming out of the closet, the It Gets Better Projects saving thousands of lives

At the same time though im deeply troubled by the total support of the Democratic Party that my fellow queers have fallen victim too. Admittedly, I vote Democratic in the booth but I dont support them but so many gays think the Dems have their backs, even though not all that much has been done 5 years into Obamas term.

Additionally, all of the corporate sponsorships and ads in GLBT publifications and parades is most unwelcome (to me) I feel it defeats the legitimacy of our goals and dreams.

[Orange Juche]

It's, longterm, fucking terrible. In fact, it helps feed the status quo by giving Dems an excuse to say "we're still better than them!", allowing them to get away with this NSA type shit.

And, of course, the T is thrown under the bus whenever convenient, because that's how you roll when you play lesser-evilisim reformist politics. Makes me sick.

[adipocere]

Additionally, all of the corporate sponsorships and ads in GLBT publifications and parades is most unwelcome (to me) I feel it defeats the legitimacy of our goals and dreams.

It seems that corporate sponsorship is how "legitimacy" is defined these days. When the LGBT movement gets a NASCAR - it's official.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic - it is truly demoralizing when corporations start plastering their logos all over something that is important or special - if you don't like it then you should let the people responsible for the corruption know how you feel. This issue of corporate sponsorship seems to have hit a nerve in the LGBT community.

Personally I would boycott an event or organization that was taking money from the same companies (I'm thinking Clear Channel in particular here) that have been instrumental in facilitating hate speech - not to mention their (SF Gay Pride) shameful and very public blacklisting of Bradley Manning.

[slum]

i fucking hate it, i basically dropped out of queer life which i'm not proud of but the focus on marriage law above all else and the endless default democratic party liberalism plus weird prescriptive ideas about gender from other queers... all the new corporate adverts being applauded with white, safe looking male couples in sweaters... mainstream queerdom at this point has lost its radical tone and seems to be all about acting more straight.

that said i'm still going to pride BROUGHT TO YOU BY BANK OF AMERICA tomorrow so

yeah and it has meant trans folks being thrown under the bus year after year... just WAIT, we don't want to scare them off! all that HRC bullshit makes me sick

[Manar]

I think it's not a bad thing because it finally reveals that the LGBT movement is a bourgeois movement and a project of only secondary importance for communists. Gay activism is no substitute for genuine class struggle.

[Tenka]

... mainstream queerdom at this point has lost its radical tone and seems to be all about acting more straight.


That's exactly what it's about for the bourgeois mainstream.
And I never really cared for legal gay marriage. It is theoretically progressive, and it has upsides such as visitation rights in hospitals, but in practice it is a cheap--even profitable--way for the bourgeoisie to excise what has hitherto made the homosexual radical by her/his very unchangeable nature: a mode of love-life diametrically opposed and obviously superior (dying conservative social mores notwithstanding) to the productivist propertarian capitalist model of Family Life.

In a certain sense, gay marriage can be seen as a trap.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's hard to really say, but one thing this illustrates is the corrosive ability of capitalism to disintegrate old peculiarities and contingencies.

I think it goes back to the fundamental alienation of individuals and the propensity of capitalism to strip away unique human qualities and define people in solely economic terms. Thus, just as capitalism shifts the focus from, say, ethnic group or gender onto the individual as an economic unit, I suspect we are witnessing it doing the same thing for sexual orientation right now.

LGBT politics is egalitarian - it desires standardization for everyone in terms of things like (primarily) marriage and family laws, and a major tenet of these politics is that ultimately the sex of the two individuals should on some level be immaterial. This is strikingly consistent with how capitalism abolishes individual distinctions it sees as to a large degree arbitrary.

[slum]

That's exactly what it's about for the bourgeois mainstream.
And I never really cared for legal gay marriage. It is theoretically progressive, and it has upsides such as visitation rights in hospitals, but in practice it is a cheap--even profitable--way for the bourgeoisie to excise what has hitherto made the homosexual radical by her/his very unchangeable nature: a mode of love-life diametrically opposed and obviously superior (dying conservative social mores notwithstanding) to the productivist propertarian capitalist model of Family Life.

In a certain sense, gay marriage can be seen as a trap.

yessss exactly. far from being the ruination of the "sacred bond" between husband and property (oops was that too blunt), it's a weird attempt to prop up this failing institution and at the same time to pull us into the fold of alienated, atomized social reproduction (family 'units', children or no children)

like fuck yeah, do i want to destroy marriage. where do i sign up?

in a less abstract sense the endless back-and-forth with ossified religious bigots on marriage as the Pressing Social Issue of Our Age is another effective distraction from issues like lack of healthcare, violent hate crimes, poverty, incarceration, youth suicide etc which plague the queer community not to mention ongoing economic misery*.

there are plenty of queers who just want to be able to adopt more easily or get visitation rights and that's legit on an individual, very short-term level, and it isn't my business. but we need to look at this from a broader perspective and see how it actually reinforces social relations that are sexist and anti-queer- and how it drains radicalism from our communities by offering the upper crust concessions.

*i should say to be fair there are lots of great youth orgs and street-based programs that focus on this stuff exclusively. they just dont get mainstream press; they arent seen as part of the 'debate'. instead the press loves bourgeois queer garden party clubs and university identity politics

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Gay marriage, without equalisation of LGBT rights in terms of cultural, customs and the attitudes that pervade society, can be seen as a co-optive measure by the bourgeoisie.

As Tenka says, it's a cheap way to espouse LGBT 'rights'.

[RadioRaheem84]

I never wanted to say anything to my gay friends for fear of sounding reactionary but I was wondering if gay people were noticing the co-opting of their movement in an effort to turn homosexuality "straight" and "normalize" it by making it fit the family paradigm. For instance it's almost as if the movement is trying to paint the LGBT community in the exact same light as the families politicians and companies vie for votes and consumers.

Doesn't that put the LGBT community on the defensive though? As though they have to fit that family straight model to be accepted into the main?

I get the feeling an establishment will form out of this movement that will dictate what is acceptable behavior for the LBGT community and they will disown the radical liberationist elements, the talk of how society pathologizes sexuality, and how working class and homeless LGBT will be overshadowed by the supposed "A" Gays who own capital.

It's really sad the movement is going this way, but as Chomsky said, no movement in this country gets respectability or acceptance until the business class says so. I think he is right about that.

[Orange Juche]

I think it's not a bad thing because it finally reveals that the LGBT movement is a bourgeois movement and a project of only secondary importance for communists.

Not wanting to get the shit kicked out of you for using the "wrong" gendered bathroom or the right not to get kicked out of your apartment for being differently gendered than society would like isn't "of only secondary importance" to the people who actually have to be concerned about it.

[Tolstoy]

I think it's not a bad thing because it finally reveals that the LGBT movement is a bourgeois movement and a project of only secondary importance for communists. Gay activism is no substitute for genuine class struggle.

Genuine class struggle cant happen without the elimination of homophobia. This kind of thing divides the working class just like race issues.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think it's not a bad thing because it finally reveals that the LGBT movement is a bourgeois movement and a project of only secondary importance for communists. Gay activism is no substitute for genuine class struggle.


class struggle is multi faceted. there is a national component, a sexuality component, a gender component, age, language, region, etc...


the working class does not have a hive mind and the motivation for some workers to revolt is of as much importance as another workers motivation to revolt. homophobia is also another dividing line for workers.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Where else does the LGBT politics have to go, other than Corporate bosses, to be heard? There exist no substantial social/economic political institutions in our society which are opposed to capitalism, that can exert the amount of pressure on the State and publicity as Capital can.

[Aurora]

I think you or maybe i misinterpreted Manar, i thought their point was that the LGBT movement is bourgeois as can be attributed to by almost everything in this thread, that the LGBT movement is a release on any genuine radicalism funneling it into a question of rights rather than equality etc much like any single issue campaign like bourgeois feminism or bourgeois anti-racism.
For example the current LGBT movement is fighting for a formal equality but the content of society is still homophobic, women won a formal equality almost a hundred years ago but our society is still rooted in the bourgeois family and hence the content is still patriarchal.

The only genuine movement capable of providing a correct analysis and actually achieving equality is the communist movement, that is, all struggles like the ones Rusty mentions national, sex, sexuality etc can only be won in the struggle for and through communism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think you or maybe i misinterpreted Manar, i thought their point was that the LGBT movement is bourgeois as can be attributed to by almost everything in this thread, that the LGBT movement is a release on any genuine radicalism funneling it into a question of rights rather than equality etc much like any single issue campaign like bourgeois feminism or bourgeois anti-racism.
For example the current LGBT movement is fighting for a formal equality but the content of society is still homophobic, women won a formal equality almost a hundred years ago but our society is still rooted in the bourgeois family and hence the content is still patriarchal.

The only genuine movement capable of providing a correct analysis and actually achieving equality is the communist movement, that is, all struggles like the ones Rusty mentions national, sex, sexuality etc can only be won in the struggle for and through communism.

That said, they did imply that the project of LGBT liberation is of "secondary importance". I mean, alright, on one hand, everything is subordinate to the class struggle, but on the other hand, LGBT people are part of the proletariat as well and smashing heteropatriarchy is an important part of the cultural revolution.

I tend to be suspicious of statements about how LGBT (or womens') liberation is of "secondary importance", since they are more often than not a shameless cover for getting into bed with "anticapitalist" reactionary movements.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Putting it generously, I'd say it was a mixed blessing. The idea that gay people are entitled to the same right as everybody else is politically mainstream now, if not exactly universally accepted in the general discourse. All of this is a very, very recent development - far moreso than women's equality or racial equality. It must have only been in the last decade or so that the brutal mass murder of homosexuals in the Nazi holocaust has even been acknowledged on Holocaust Memorial Day. In this respect, the movement's lobbying efforts have been successful.

There just seems to be very little LGBT activist presence on the ground. The radical, left-wing side of gay activism is all but non-existant. Peter Tatchell's OutRage has a reputation in the UK for being 'militant' but they are more of a liberal pressure group than anything, only with more of a focus on direct action than Stonewall (the UK lobbying group, not the riots). There has also has also been a strong pattern of Islamophobic and Orientalist prejudice in Tatchell's own work and he is terrible at getting his facts right. So much so, a coalition of African LGBT activists issued a statement urging other Western human rights activists to stay well away from OutRage. (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2007/increse310107.html)
Through the following actions, Outrage! has repeatedly disrespected the lives, damaged the struggle, and endangered the safety of African Human Rights Defenders:

Outrage!'s press releases contain information that is not factual. They do not verify information before including it in their press releases. When they are corrected by local activists, they refuse to print retractions or to make any attempt to stop the damaging effects of their press releases.

Outrage! repeatedly quotes people out of context and uses these statements to further their own agenda rather than presenting the truth.

Outrage! does not consult the relevant local activists before embarking on campaigns that directly affect us and are destructive to our work. They disregard collaborative efforts by African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders and international Human Rights organisations, and come up with unilateral strategies that work against the progress being achieved by the rest of the Human Rights actors. We are tired of having to constantly expend energy working to undo irreparable damage that Outrage! has caused.

Outrage! exaggerates the violations our governments commit. When they quote African Human Rights Defenders in the very same press releases where they are exaggerating claims against our governments, we are held responsible for their reckless outbursts. As African activists, we are then left to face the wrath of our communities for statements we never made.

Outrage! does not listen to, value, or heed the advice of local genuine activists. They mix our words with the opinions of uninformed, naïve, or crook individuals. They take whatever information is available, regardless of the source, and twist it to gain more publicity. Certainly, Outrage! is not acting on our behalf.

I think what can be said about OutRage can be said about a lot of white Western gay activists and lobbyists. Pretty much nobody in the movement deviates from the default liberal orthodoxy. And this is the reason Bradley Manning seems to have been deserted by them (although Tatchell did speak out for him, to his credit) and it's the reason reactionary bloggers like Andrew Sullivan (nasty piece of work who praised the pharmaceutical companies during the AIDS crisis) are practically interchangeable with them. This urgently needs to change if there is any hope of stopping serious persecution in Africa especially. Like it or not, it is considered a serious insult by Africans for the United States to threaten to withdraw food aid on the grounds of gay rights and I am tempted to say I agree. Every activist should distance themselves from this grubby practice of using aid as a weapon.

However, I also think radical/far left activists have to meet the gay community halfway. There is a rich history of literature on the radical left on race issues and women's issues, but no equivalent on gay or trans issues. In addition to that, the subject is hardly ever uttered in some left-wing publications (especially the Monthly Review & Monthly Review Press, the Socialist Worker, Counterpunch and the Proletarian to give just a few examples). And usually when they do talk about it, it's only to lecture Stonewall, HRC's assimilationist or to bemoan how conventional the movement has become (too much focus on gay marriage or the military, etc) or how it is not sufficiently inclusive of other marginalised group. Yes, these are real issues, but unless you balance it out with some material attacking the perpetrators of homophobia, don't be surprised if gays and lesbians feel the left has little to offer them.

[Manar]

That's exactly what it's about for the bourgeois mainstream.
And I never really cared for legal gay marriage. It is theoretically progressive, and it has upsides such as visitation rights in hospitals, but in practice it is a cheap--even profitable--way for the bourgeoisie to excise what has hitherto made the homosexual radical by her/his very unchangeable nature: a mode of love-life diametrically opposed and obviously superior (dying conservative social mores notwithstanding) to the productivist propertarian capitalist model of Family Life.

In a certain sense, gay marriage can be seen as a trap.
Knock off the gay supremacism there buddy, it's no more productive than any other sort of supremacism. There is not an iota of truth in the claim that the homosexual mode of life is in any manner superior or more radical than any other sort of mode of life(does anyone remember the AIDs epidemic?). Let's just go by historical precedent. How many homosexuals have been at the forefront of the communist movement? I can't think of even one. Clearly, homosexuals aren't inherently anticapitalist and don't even tend to become anticapitalist. On the other hand, almost every single fascist leader in Europe in the last few decades, with a few exceptions like Le Pen has been a homosexual. Pim Fortyun, Jörg Haider(who spent his last few hours in a gay bar), Gerald Miscka, Michael Kühnen, Nick Griffin(read up on his affair with Martin Webster), Nicky Crane, the list goes on indefinitely. Go as far back as Nazi times and you find the Hitlerite Sturmabteilung/Brownshirts dominated by homosexuals. Lead by the gay Röhm and Röhm's officers, appointed as a reward for their sexual favors and love affairs with him(Röhm's deputy for example was the gay Edmund Heines and the leader of the SA's Berlin branch was the gay Karl Ernst who served as a bouncer in a gay club before in the past), the SA would give premium to homosexual brownshirts because they were believed to be 'more aggressive and more adept at bullying', sometimes meet in gay bars and worshiped historical gay symbols, like the 150 gay Spartan couples that defended the pass of Thermopylae during the second Persian invasion of Greece.

So really, stop with the ridiculous stereotyping. Homosexuals aren't inherently revolutionary or inherently reactionary. Some homosexuals are reactionary, some homosexuals are revolutionary. Just like any other group out there.

[Manar]

I think you or maybe i misinterpreted Manar, i thought their point was that the LGBT movement is bourgeois as can be attributed to by almost everything in this thread, that the LGBT movement is a release on any genuine radicalism funneling it into a question of rights rather than equality etc much like any single issue campaign like bourgeois feminism or bourgeois anti-racism.
For example the current LGBT movement is fighting for a formal equality but the content of society is still homophobic, women won a formal equality almost a hundred years ago but our society is still rooted in the bourgeois family and hence the content is still patriarchal.

The only genuine movement capable of providing a correct analysis and actually achieving equality is the communist movement, that is, all struggles like the ones Rusty mentions national, sex, sexuality etc can only be won in the struggle for and through communism.
Yes, you are right. That's exactly what I meant.

[Manar]

That said, they did imply that the project of LGBT liberation is of "secondary importance". I mean, alright, on one hand, everything is subordinate to the class struggle, but on the other hand, LGBT people are part of the proletariat as well and smashing heteropatriarchy is an important part of the cultural revolution.

I tend to be suspicious of statements about how LGBT (or womens') liberation is of "secondary importance", since they are more often than not a shameless cover for getting into bed with "anticapitalist" reactionary movements.
Where do Marx or Lenin write anything about smashing "heteropatriarchy"? Or even your Trotsky. How about you Trotskyists handle all this identity politics stuff, and we communists deal with the actual class struggle. You are well-equipped with the theories of various liberals, post-modernists, post-structralists and other anticommunists to handle your task, I think. We'll stick with the legacy handed down to us by Marx and the Marxists.

[Per Levy]

Knock off the gay supremacism there buddy, it's no more productive than any other sort of supremacism.

i, of course, cant speak for tenka but there is nothing of a "gay supremacism" in tenkas post.


There is not an iota of truth in the claim that the homosexual mode of life is in any manner superior or more radical than any other sort of mode of life

i never heard nor read such a claim, were did you heard of it?


(does anyone remember the AIDs epidemic?).

yeah, and last time i checked heterosexual people have just as much problems with hiv then homosexuels do.


How many homosexuals have been at the forefront of the communist movement?

there were probally some, even though i dont know what a sexual orientation has to do with being commie and in the forefront of a movement.


I can't think of even one.

have you ever looked for some?


Clearly, homosexuals aren't inherently anticapitalist and don't even tend to become anticapitalist.

what a redicilous statement, no one is "inherently anticapitalist", neither homos, heteros, bis, workers, peasant and what not. also i met gay, communist skins in my life, so homosexuels can be anticapitalist, the horror.


On the other hand, almost every single fascist leader in Europe in the last few decades, with a few exceptions like Le Pen has been a homosexual. Pim Fortyun, Jörg Haider(who spent his last few hours in a gay bar), Gerald Miscka, Michael Kühnen, Nick Griffin(read up on his affair with Martin Webster), Nicky Crane, the list goes on indefinitely.

the list of homophobic fascists leaders is probally longer, again whats your argument? that homosexuels tend tend to be fascist?


Go as far back as Nazi times and you find the Hitlerite Sturmabteilung/Brownshirts dominated by homosexuals.
Lead by the gay Röhm and Röhm's officers, appointed as a reward for their sexual favors and love affairs with him(Röhm's deputy for example was the gay Edmund Heines and the leader of the SA's Berlin branch was the gay Karl Ernst who served as a bouncer in a gay club before in the past), the SA would give premium to homosexual brownshirts because they were believed to be 'more aggressive and more adept at bullying', sometimes meet in gay bars and worshiped historical gay symbols, like the 150 gay Spartan couples that defended the pass of Thermopylae during the second Persian invasion of Greece.

and those were murdered and purged from the nazi party, so what is your fucking point?


So really, stop with the ridiculous stereotyping. Homosexuals aren't inherently revolutionary or inherently reactionary. Some homosexuals are reactionary, some homosexuals are revolutionary. Just like any other group out there.

well no one fucking made the claim that homosexuels were inherently radical. and the bolded statement is probally the position of almost anyone.

[Manar]

Do you have some sort of reading disability Per Levy? If you want to reply to my post, at least have the common courtesy to read what I was replying to. Tenka said, in quite unamibiguous terms, that the homosexual is, by his 'very unchangeable nature', a radical. This is an outrageously ignorant claim, considering that historically, most politically active homosexuals have found their home in the camp of the most reactionary movement imaginable: fascism. It's homosexual supremacism by definition.

Since your attention span is so unbelievably short, here is what Tenka said:

...way for the bourgeoisie to excise what has hitherto made the homosexual radical by her/his very unchangeable nature: a mode of love-life diametrically opposed and obviously superior (dying conservative social mores notwithstanding) to the productivist propertarian capitalist model of Family Life.
Gay supremacism. One's sexuality is something you are born with. What Tenka is saying, then, is that we straight folk are inferior to the homosexual master race by birth. Imagine Westerners going on about the "superior" lifestyle of Westerners compared to the "inferior" lifestyle of Nigerians or Tibetans.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Where do Marx or Lenin write anything about smashing "heteropatriarchy"? Or even your Trotsky.

Nowhere. So what? Leninism is not a religion, but a scientific approach to the problems of Marxist theory in modern social conditions. Previous Leninist often had an idiotic understanding of homosexuality, since they could not break from the bigoted bourgeois ideology to a sufficient degree. Apparently, neither can you.


How about you Trotskyists handle all this identity politics stuff, and we communists deal with the actual class struggle. You are well-equipped with the theories of various liberals, post-modernists, post-structralists and other anticommunists to handle your task, I think. We'll stick with the legacy handed down to us by Marx and the Marxists.

In case you haven't figured it out, homosexuals are part of the proletariat, and their oppression is conditioned by the class structure of society. Yes, bourgeois identity politics that bases itself on an idealist analysis of society is completely incompatible with proletarian politics. So is this macho-man posturing that ignores that not every proletarian is white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-bodied etc. etc.

And this isn't about Trotskyism or "Stalinism" - the "Stalinists" of the PSL have done much for LGBT rights, while ostensible "Trotskyists" like the SEP would happily sign your post.

Do you, or do you not, think that the communist movement needs to oppose homophobia? If no, the only thing that is keeping you on this site is the indolence of the administration.

[Manar]

Nowhere. So what? Leninism is not a religion, but a scientific approach to the problems of Marxist theory in modern social conditions. Previous Leninist often had an idiotic understanding of homosexuality, since they could not break from the bigoted bourgeois ideology to a sufficient degree. Apparently, neither can you.
Your musings about heteropatriarchy and heterenormativity have shit to do with Leninism, however. You borrow these theories from liberals, post-modernists, post-structralists and other vermin of similar stripes. What I object to is not updating Leninist theory, but diluting it with the works of anticommunists. What you propose is the latter. This revisionism is unacceptable and counterrevolutionary, as it compromises the health of Marxism.

In case you haven't figured it out, homosexuals are part of the proletariat, and their oppression is conditioned by the class structure of society. Yes, bourgeois identity politics that bases itself on an idealist analysis of society is completely incompatible with proletarian politics. So is this macho-man posturing that ignores that not every proletarian is white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-bodied etc. etc. First of all, some homosexuals are not a part of the proletariat. Some are. Some aren't. LGBT organisations, without exception, are under control of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois gay elements and corporate sponsors. Aiding the marketing departments of multi-national corporations is not the duty of the communist. Secondly, you are contradicting yourself. I said that the gay rights movement is of secondary importance. You took objection with that. Now you are saying that the oppression of homosexuals is conditioned by the class structure of society. This means that the oppression of gay people cannot come to an end under capitalist society. This, by definition, means that the LGBT struggle is a futile one, a struggle that cannot end in victory under capitalism, and thus, a struggle of secondary importance compared to the class struggle. So, you either agree with me, or you aren't even reading what you are writing. On second thought, you actually went even further than me. By saying that the LGTB struggle is a futile one under capitalism, you are saying that it is of no importance at all, because it can yield no results.

You have developed this contradiction precisely because of your futile attempt to merge Marxist class analysis with the vulgarity of identity politics.


Do you, or do you not, think that the communist movement needs to oppose homophobia? If no, the only thing that is keeping you on this site is the indolence of the administration. Stop being a fucking jackass, what have I said to imply that I support homophobia? I'm a communist. I oppose every form of privilege and oppression. That said, like all communists, I place paramount importance on the class struggle. Everything else is indeed of secondary importance.

[Rafiq]

Manar, mouthpiece and defender of the bourgeous family, running dog of Islamism and social conservativism, talks of bourgeois deviations from the apparently existing grand communist movement.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[GerrardWinstanley]

I think it's not a bad thing because it finally reveals that the LGBT movement is a bourgeois movement and a project of only secondary importance for communists. Gay activism is no substitute for genuine class struggle.It is a project of secondary importance to knuckledragging (usually male) bores that call themselves communists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Your musings about heteropatriarchy and heterenormativity have shit to do with Leninism, however. You borrow these theories from liberals, post-modernists, post-structralists and other vermin of similar stripes. What I object to is not updating Leninist theory, but diluting it with the works of anticommunists. What you propose is the latter. This revisionism is unacceptable and counterrevolutionary, as it compromises the health of Marxism.

The recognition that heteropatriarchy exists is not liberal - indeed, the term is crucial as it underscores the connection of homophobia to the apparatus of patriarchy, and to the economic structure of bourgeois dictatorship. Liberal ideology, if it recognises this apparatus at all, mystifies it by viewing it as purely ideological and not as a concrete body of men, practices, etc. etc.

I assure you I am no fan of liberalism, or of post-anything. But denouncing any reference to homophobia as liberalism is a boringly obvious trick.


First of all, some homosexuals are not a part of the proletariat. Some are. Some aren't.

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to anything I have written? I have, I believe, never claimed that all homosexuals are part of the proletariat. But they are part of the proletariat, whereas "communist" homophobes like to pretend that no proletarian deviates from their Nazi norms for a good, manly worker.


LGBT organisations, without exception, are under control of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois gay elements and corporate sponsors.

The Red Flag Union, Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action and Bash Back were all more proletarian than most of the moribund, putrid groups that pass for "the left".


Aiding the marketing departments of multi-national corporations is not the duty of the communist.

The bourgeoisie, particularly the American bourgeoisie, is currently trying to enact further repressive laws against homosexuals, in Africa and elsewhere.


Secondly, you are contradicting yourself. I said that the gay rights movement is of secondary importance. You took objection with that. Now you are saying that the oppression of homosexuals is conditioned by the class structure of society. This means that the oppression of gay people cannot come to an end under capitalist society. This, by definition, means that the LGBT struggle is a futile one, a struggle that cannot end in victory under capitalism, and thus, a struggle of secondary importance compared to the class struggle. So, you either agree with me, or you aren't even reading what you are writing. On second thought, you actually went even further than me. By saying that the LGTB struggle is a futile one under capitalism, you are saying that it is of no importance at all, because it can yield no results.

This shows an elementary misunderstanding of Marxism. Of course homophobia can not be decisively smashed under the bourgeois dictatorship. Neither can misogyny nor racism. It does not, however, follow that no positive change is possible or that fighting the bourgeois apparatus in its heteropatriarchal aspect is futile. Quite the contrary.


Stop being a fucking jackass, what have I said to imply that I support homophobia?

Your first post on this site stated that LGBT liberation was of "secondary importance". Your first avatar was the emblem of the murderously homophobic Hizbullah. You peddle the old Yezhovite nonsense about homosexuals being somehow predisposed to fascism. You complain about "gay supremacy" - oh, you poor heterosexual men oppressed by gay supremacists! Shall I go on?


I'm a communist. I oppose every form of privilege and oppression. That said, like all communists, I place paramount importance on the class struggle. Everything else is indeed of secondary importance.

This is simply lazy analysis. Homophobia is part of the apparatus of the bourgeois dictatorship, and smashing it is part of the cultural revolution. I would have thought a modern anti-revisionist would recognise this necessity, and indeed most do. (As an aside, I wonder if you think that the PPSh edicts against patriarchy were "post-structuralist identity politics.) Furthermore, given the poisonous nature of homophobia, it is the duty of every communist to struggle against homophobia in themselves and in others.

[MarxSchmarx]

Let's all try to be less personal in our critiques. Semendyaev has a reasoned response to Manar's views, and I'd encourage everyone to follow Semendyaev's approach in refuting arguments they disagree with.

Don't make me give warnings for any subsequent oneliners that are little more than name calling and personal insults.