Communist countries that have been LGBT friendly or at least tolerant

[xxxxxx666666]

Hi everyone,

I've been doing some research on Communist countries that have been friendly or at least tolerate of LGBT people, here's what I've found so far, please feel free to add or subtract from this list:

-The Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev (my hero :grin:) had been relatively tolerant of homosexuals and other peoples as well.

- East German in 1967.

-Vietnam post 2012

[Panda Tse Tung]

The soviet union at foundation had a brief period of being lgbt friendly.

Current-day Cuba is tolerant.

[Marxaveli]

The premise of the analysis is flawed though, since there is no such thing as a 'communist country', and by definition there cannot be. Communism and nationalism are incompatible.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Khrushchev is your hero? What?

And you prettymuch nailed it with that miniscule list. Most 'communist' countries were and are extensively homophobic, either because of natalist crap or the wider terror of reactionary cultural norms, and lack of social and cultural criticism.

[Red_Banner]

The premise of the analysis is flawed though, since there is no such thing as a 'communist country', and by definition there cannot be. Communism and nationalism are incompatible.

Even still, nation means ethnic group, not necessarily state.


Communism is Internationalist.

[Red_Banner]

The RSFSR had legal homosexuality from 1917 until 1930.

The pre-94 Russian Federation that still had a socialist based constitution relegalised it.

[DDR]

DDR from the 70s, early USSR and today's Cuba and pretty much that's it.

[Lensky]

There were extremely progressive communes in China during the Mao era where homosexuality was accepted and the family unit combatted.

[Remus Bleys]

There were extremely progressive communes in China during the Mao era where homosexuality was accepted and the family unit combatted.

i don't know if i believe this or not. I have read pre-Mao homosexuality was a different concept, and that homosexuality, while taboo, was accepted. I have also read that all homosexuality was made illegal under mao.

[xxxxxx666666]

i don't know if i believe this or not. I have read pre-Mao homosexuality was a different concept, and that homosexuality, while taboo, was accepted. I have also read that all homosexuality was made illegal under mao.

From what I've read, Mao supposedly believed in the sexual castration of "sexual deviants" i.e. homosexuals. And yes, homosexuality, like other "deviant behaviors", was made illegal under Mao. An extreme example is that during Mao's Revolution all opium users were shot, but I guess this is a little off topic.

It was only in 1997 that homosexuality was decriminalized in China and they are reportedly still faced discrimination and harassment from the government after that.

But I'm here to learn so please feel free to provide more details.;)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The RSFSR had legal homosexuality from 1917 until 1930.

The pre-94 Russian Federation that still had a socialist based constitution relegalised it.

I've read that this was simply because of recently overturned laws of the Russian Empire being discarded, not because there was a strong LGBT push during the revolution. Lenin was also supposedly a natalist, being for 'logical sexual intercourse' or some other nonsense. I'll try to find it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you mean countries popularly considered to be "communist," not many have been LGBT tolerant. They tended to be socially backwards before the revolution, and remained that way on matters of sexuality, gender, etc. In large part because they didn't actually abolish existing social relations.

[xxxxxx666666]

From my understanding after the Revolution, the USSR decriminalised homosexualty only in Russia itself, the surrounding Soviet Republics (is this the correct term?) still had laws that made homosexualty a punishable offense, though how such laws were actually enforced is beyond me, perhaps someone here has more information?

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you mean countries popularly considered to be "communist," not many have been LGBT tolerant. They tended to be socially backwards before the revolution, and remained that way on matters of sexuality, gender, etc. In large part because they didn't actually abolish existing social relations.

I think that's probably a lot of it, but I think some countries got worse (The USSR for example). I think this is not only because old customs and bigotry were left alone, but because many of these countries needed to dicipline the working class and so you have sexual "deviency" attacked on the one hand while there are efforts to control or shape biological reproduction in different ways (promotion of birth-rates in the USSR, restrictions in China, etc).

In the few years after the Russian Revolution there seemed to be a flowering of sexuality for a time, I don't think it was some policy it was more of an open question in society. The revolution supporters seemed to have a range of opinions but I don't think there was any real overt stand regarding lgbt sexuality - it seems like sexual debates mainly focused questions of women's liberation.

Below is an audio presentation on some of the debates among the Bolsheviks and society in general regarding sexuality - it covers some of the initial freedom in sexuality and the intiatives taken by lgbt people themselves in this period.

http://wearemany.org/a/2013/06/sex-and-sexuality-in-soviet-russia

[A.J.]

As regretable as the lack of tolerance of homosexuality may have been is it not quite unrealistic and utopian to assume that old prejudices are going to suddenly disappear on the morrow of the revolution?

Also, with regard the USSR in the 30s; the rationale behind homosexuality being discouraged was in order to help increase the birth rate(remember this was long before the days of artificial insemination). Additional manpower was required to work in the factories and fill the ranks of the Red Army in the event of the USSR becoming embroiled in a war with one or more imperialist power(see J.V. Stalin's 1931 speech on being 100 years behind developed capitalist countries and having to make up that difference in 10). As indeed transpired when the fascists invaded in 1941.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Also, with regard the USSR in the 30s; the rationale behind homosexuality being discouraged was in order to help increase the birth rate(remember this was long before the days of artificial insemination). Additional manpower was required to work in the factories and fill the ranks of the Red Army in the event of the USSR becoming embroiled in a war with one or more imperialist power(see J.V. Stalin's 1931 speech on being 100 years behind developed capitalist countries and having to make up that difference in 10). As indeed transpired when the fascists invaded in 1941.

This is some blatant, disgusting apologetism.

[A.J.]

This is some blatant, disgusting apologetism.

Stop being self-righteous.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Can you honestly not see that the so called rationale behind the USSR "discouragement" of homosexuality is reactionary? As if "discouraging homosexuality" helps birth number goes up, and as if that was the real rationale behind it.

[KurtFF8]

I suggest looking into LGBTQ rights in Cuba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Sex_Education_in_Cuba

[StalinBad]

The soviet union at foundation had a brief period of being lgbt friendly.

Current-day Cuba is tolerant.

When did the soviet union stop being LGBT friendly? In 1933? I think that is when Stalin made it illegal to not be heterosexual.

[DROSL]

The premise of the analysis is flawed though, since there is no such thing as a 'communist country', and by definition there cannot be. Communism and nationalism are incompatible.

Marx clearly says national barriers are important. You should probably read more.

[Comrade Dracula]

Marx clearly says national barriers are important. You should probably read more.

I have a couple of objections with this post:

1) Simply because Marx said something does not automatically make it true. Believe it or not, Marx could say some quite idiotic crap from time to time - Perhaps by the virtue of being a human being rather than a deity. So perhaps we ought to take his work as such: A highly useful, yet none the less flawed opus; rather than a Gospel. As such, it would be rather excellent if you provided an argument (as, perhaps, based on Marx's work; with quotations if that's your thing) rather than not-really-quoting someone else's words on something.

2) "Marx clearly says national barriers are important."

Aye, important - but important to whom, and in what context? Nobody will argue that the national barriers aren't important when discussing, say, the genesis of the bourgeois nationalist movement. On the contrary, whoever declares otherwise is being rather mistaken in their argument.
But where does he say that? What was he talking about?

Perhaps then, when you are so unwilling to provide context for your assertion, that to which you respond will provide it.

Herr Marxavelli said:

The premise of the analysis is flawed though, since there is no such thing as a 'communist country', and by definition there cannot be. Communism and nationalism are incompatible.

To which you obliged to respond with:

Marx clearly says national barriers are important. You should probably read more.

(emphasis is mine)

This leads me to believe that you are declaring a possibility of a purely national, wait for it... Not merely DOTP, not even Socialism (as perhaps, given your M-L ties, would make sense), but instead a communist society.

Meaning, you want a stateless state, as bound by national barriers, within a global capitalist system. That's prolier than me, I shit you not.

3) Of course, I realize that you most likely do not desire any such thing, but as a reply to your suggestion:

You should probably read more.

You, on the other hand, could frankly use a little bit more content giving context in your posts. Vagueness won't get you anywhere. Unless you are post-modernist of the obscurantisme terroriste sort.

[Marxaveli]

Marx clearly says national barriers are important. You should probably read more.

Perhaps I do - in fact, we all do.

But one thing I already know, and you apparently do not, is that 'socialism in one country' does NOT work, nor can it. Borders are one of the key components that are important to capitalist society ONLY - if there is national borders, we still have capitalism. Derp.

Also, as for Marx saying national barriers were important, I don't know which of his works you are referring to, but it seems likely that you have taken him out of context.

[freecommunist]

When did the soviet union stop being LGBT friendly? In 1933? I think that is when Stalin made it illegal to not be heterosexual.

It was prob around the same time abortion was banned due to socialism being achieved. :ohmy: :laugh:

[A.J.]

It was prob around the same time abortion was banned due to socialism being achieved. :ohmy: :laugh:

Or part of the wider attempt to increase the birth-rate. As I alluded to earlier in this thread.

[Red_Banner]

Or part of the wider attempt to increase the birth-rate. As I alluded to earlier in this thread.


Oh yeah, people are going to suddenly become un-homosexual to please Stalin. :laugh:

[A.J.]

Oh yeah, people are going to suddenly become un-homosexual to please Stalin. :laugh:

^That was a quite frankly pitiful attempt at trying to be humourous and witty.

Embarrassing.

[Red_Banner]

Humourous or not you don't seem to be able to grasp the reality that people are not going to simply change their orientation to please some bureaucrat and abide by his law.

[A.J.]

Humourous or not you don't seem to be able to grasp the reality that people are not going to simply change their orientation to please some bureaucrat and aide by his law.

As I don't think think you're clever so adopting a haughty tone towards to me makes you look like a bit of a charlatan.

[Japan]

None of those are communist countries, as has been already pointed out...

[xxxxxx666666]

To "Japan",

Sorry for taking so long to respond (I've been busy) but from my readings of East Germany's actions during it's existence, they did tried to be Marxist (after all Marx was born in German, or so the East German official line goes).

As well as the countries I've listed, they were socialist or tried to be.

Any more countries?

[Entfremdung]

It's kinda meaningless to talk about LGBT rights in nominally communist countries without reference to the wider world. Same-sex sexual activity was only legalized in Scotland in 1981 and nationwide in the United States in 2003.

[synthesis]

I'm starting to dislike the overkill with pouncing on people who use the term "communist country." I mean, it's perfectly valid and in fact entirely necessary when discussing the topic with people who aren't knowledgeable about Marxist terminology, but on RevLeft I think it's pretty common knowledge that those countries weren't actually possessed of the communist mode of production and that when someone here says "communist country" it's generally shorthand for "country ruled by a Communist Party."

[xxxxxx666666]

Hence, Entfredung, why same sex marrage in East German in 1967, in name at least, as well as the somewhat more tolerance of USSR begining in 1956 to 1964 was significant: this was before, for East German's case, the "wider world" have legalized it.

Of course I'm interested if there are any more countries ruled nominally communist parties or individuals or who are otherwise claim "communism" have similarly been more tolerance for minorities in their history?

And how was the situation (for minorities) in those countries?

[xxxxxx666666]

When did the soviet union stop being LGBT friendly? In 1933? I think that is when Stalin made it illegal to not be heterosexual.

Yes you are correct it was "in 1933, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison."

[Flying Purple People Eater]

As I don't think think you're clever so adopting a haughty tone towards to me makes you look like a bit of a charlatan.

The only person who looks like a charlatan is the big 1930s soviet policy arse-kisser who is trying to obtusely justify homophobic laws with dumb and mechanistic mythology.

I.e. you.

[Comrade Chernov]

There's no excuse for outlawing homosexuality, even when disguised as boinking for the revolution's future.

Stalin was homophobic. Stalin was an asshole. Stalin was a tyrant who did more damage to the reputation of Communists and Socialists as a whole than any other General Secretary from any other country's Communist Party. Trying to excuse his blatantly prejudiced rhetoric is inexcusable.

Yeah, Stalin gave an excuse to hide the fact that he hated gays, we get it. It was a shitty excuse, a stance about as strong as wet toilet paper. Just because that's what he said doesn't mean that's what he meant. Wouldn't be the first time Stalin lied/fucked something up in the name of preserving the revolution.

[synthesis]

It's not just that Stalin "hated gays." It was part of a huge rightward shift that also included ethnic chauvinism, nationalism, anti-Semitism and imperialism after the relative period of social liberation immediately following the October Revolution.

[Invader Zim]

Stop being self-righteous.

Stop making apologetics for the reactionary policies of a reactionary regime which veiled itself in a red flag.

[Communist(stalinist)]

Khrushev??? Your hero ??? I don't understand how can that bastard be a hero of someone. He buried the great stalin. That's why I hate him. He hated stalin, so I hate him. But anyway, yes there were some communist countries that were tolerant, but not friendly, in east Europe.

[xxxxxx666666]

Khrushev??? Your hero ??? I don't understand how can that bastard be a hero of someone. He buried the great stalin. That's why I hate him. He hated stalin, so I hate him. But anyway, yes there were some communist countries that were tolerant, but not friendly, in east Europe.

Care to list those gay-tolerant countries?

My understanding is that, other than East Germany in the peroids I've alread mentioned, and USSR under Khrushchev and before Nikita, Lenin, most communist countries disliked gays to put it mildly.

Oh, and after some research I can add Czechoslovak to the list of LGBT-friendly after same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in 1962 and homosexual prostitution was decriminalized in 1990, so the Czech Republic is gay friendly, or at least was. :)

Oh, and please, this thread is not about how bad, or good, or anything in between, person X is, be that person Khrushev or Stalin or person X but about how homosexuals were treated in communist countries as opposed to the "West", though please, feel free use a significant person or persons if it gives how homosexuals were treated a historical context, ok? :)

[tallguy]

The premise of the analysis is flawed though, since there is no such thing as a 'communist country', and by definition there cannot be. Communism and nationalism are incompatible.You’ve merely replaced a philosophical paradox there, though, with an arguably more important real-world one. As long as there are sill capitalist countries with their own borders, it is arguably necessary for those parts of the world that try to enact a communist way of living to erect borders themselves in order to keep their fledgling systems protected from capitalist infiltration. The upshot being, if the only criteria by which you would accept a communist system as being validly described as such is if it has no border controls, then you condemn the world to never achieving that end.

[Remus Bleys]

You’ve merely replaced a philosophical paradox there, though, with an arguably more important real-world one. As long as there are sill capitalist countries with their own borders, it is arguably necessary for those parts of the world that try to enact a communist way of living to erect borders themselves in order to keep their fledgling systems protected from capitalist infiltration. The upshot being, if the only criteria by which you would accept a communist system as being validly described as such is if it has no border controls, then you condemn the world to never achieving that end.
Youve simply said that was a problem and claimed SiOC, which most of us dont subscribe too

[xxxxxx666666]

Youve simply said that was a problem and claimed SiOC, which most of us dont subscribe too

SiOC? Forgive my ignorance but what do you mean by that?

Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantically-Interlinked_Online_Communities


Serial input/output controller?
http://www.robocommunity.com/forum/thread/18396/Serial-input-output-controller/

Something else?

Please elaborate, thanks:)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

SiOC? Forgive my ignorance but what do you mean by that?

Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantically-Interlinked_Online_Communities


Serial input/output controller?
http://www.robocommunity.com/forum/thread/18396/Serial-input-output-controller/

Something else?

Please elaborate, thanks:)

Socialism in One Country.

[tallguy]

Youve simply said that was a problem and claimed SiOC, which most of us dont subscribe too
An appeal to majority authority does not constitute an argument. Okay so, presumably, you don't view as a problem socialism in one country surrounded by, say, capitalist countries whose elites will, presumably, be hostile to it. In which case, it really would help this debate if you were to outline some of the reasons why you think it is not a problem. Or, if you do think it is a problem, if you were to outline what your solutions/alternatives to it are would also be helpful.

I am going to try and anticipate your reasoning (in the absence of them currently being laid out here) as being related to something along the lines of "socialist state" being an oxymoron and, philosophically, I think you'd be correct. However, in the real world, such a strict philosophical adherence merely leaves one incapable of effecting any change since it cannot, in practice, be effected with philosophical perfection. If that is the crux of the argument, then it's a useless argument and I am only interested in useful ones.

You can call such a proto-socialist system with borders anything you like, if that makes it easier for you to countenance such an entity. The point, is, in the absence of border controls in hostile geo-political context, what alternative useful measures do you propose by which such a fledgling system protects itself?

[xxxxxx666666]

Socialism in One Country.

Thanks. ;)

Ok, what more information on any or all socialist countries, or countries claiming to be socialist as the case may be, who were LGBT friendly during their history?

And for those who may want to know more about Socialism in one country (SiOC as Remus Bleys puts it) here are links to:

Socialism in One Country

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t184411/index.html?t=184411&highlight=Socialism+Country

Why is "Socialism In One Country" impossible?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-socialism-one-t184088/index.html?t=184088&highlight=Socialism+Country

Heck, here's an entire list of discussions on "Socialism in One Country" when I used the revleft search function:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=5704192

Ok, so "Socialism in one Country" aside, what role, or roles, do LGBT persons have in history, perhaps openly?

And please, feel free to discuss other minorities as well, to give historial context, if you know some interesting information , thanks!

[Tolstoy]

Stalin was big on gaybaiting and used it as a tactic against his enemies, another regard which made him not so different from Hitler.

On another note, Cuba is very LGBT friendly and the Sandinistas were fairly progressive in this regard

[Comrade Chernov]

Cuba, I have to say, is probably the benchmark of what Socialism-in-One-Country parties need to live up to. They've got amazing healthcare, are very LGBT friendly as Tolstoy said, and Castro made sure that women's liberation and women's issues were well-addressed.

[Remus Bleys]

An appeal to majority authority does not constitute an argument.
No it doesn't. But I was simply saying that that argument wouldn't work for the vast majority here, so if the poster was going to use it, then they should use a different argument.

Okay so, presumably, you don't view as a problem socialism in one country surrounded by, say, capitalist countries whose elites will, presumably, be hostile to it.
No. I do not know what you mean? Bourgeois states are going to be hostile to the proletarian dictatorship, but that doesn't mean the proletarian dictatorship can't happen. I am saying Socialism in One Country does not work.

In which case, it really would help this debate if you were to outline some of the reasons why you think it is not a problem.
There is a poster Tim Cornelis, and I think this explanation is one of the better ones. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2677180&postcount=19 and http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2677154&postcount=11

Or, if you do think it is a problem, if you were to outline what your solutions/alternatives to it are would also be helpful.
a world revolution that is able to implement socialism worldwide at once.

I am going to try and anticipate your reasoning (in the absence of them currently being laid out here) as being related to something along the lines of "socialist state" being an oxymoron and, philosophically, I think you'd be correct.
My argument is not that a socialist state is an oxymoron (well it is, but the meaning meant something different). My argument does not rest on philosophy.

However, in the real world, such a strict philosophical adherence merely leaves one incapable of effecting any change since it cannot, in practice, be effected with philosophical perfection. If that is the crux of the argument, then it's a useless argument and I am only interested in useful ones.
This is called Strawman.

You can call such a proto-socialist system with borders anything you like, if that makes it easier for you to countenance such an entity.
What? proto-socialism would be the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it is still capitalist.

The point, is, in the absence of border controls in hostile geo-political context, what alternative useful measures do you propose by which such a fledgling system protects itself?
You see, I am saying socialism in one country does not work, not proletarian dictatorship in one country.