LGBT. A anticapitalist question?

[Sinred]

I had a wierd discussion here on revleft where some users argued that the fight against heteronormativity was something socialists should embrace as a anticapitalist position since the heteronormativity is the product of capitalism (just like racism or sexism).

Just to clear, i am fully pro-gay rights and defend the liberal rights of LGBT-people.

The thing is i do not see how the sexuality would be a product of class oppression. Can anyone explain this to me?

[MarxistPC]

I had a wierd discussion here on revleft where some users argued that the fight against heteronormativity was something socialists should embrace as a anticapitalist position since the heteronormativity is the product of capitalism (just like racism or sexism).

Just to clear, i am fully pro-gay rights and defend the liberal rights of LGBT-people.

The thing is i do not see how the sexuality would be a product of class oppression. Can anyone explain this to me?

I think that this is a major problem in the left today, especially here on RevLeft. There is an unspoken basis upon which ideologies such as Marxism, Communism, and some other Leftist ideology that states that humans are blank slates. We are born without natural tendencies or differences between us for fear that it might be used as the old Left in the United States and Fascists in Europe used it.

I think there are some major distinctions that we as the Left have to come together and solve because I think through biology and genetics (I know it's a scary word) we have a stronger argument for our cause. After reading the The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, world renowned psychologist and as self described "libertarian in the European sense", my world view was shifted about how humans interact with one another, how we as humans envision others, and therefore construct political ideas around those assumptions.

We must first understand that our ideologies have their roots in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries as a response to Capitalism. In the case of Anarchist thought it reaches back to John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, Marxism to the Romantic German Counter-Enlightenment, and Communism throughout Europe after Marx's death. During this time the central question to the Left was how to treat slavery considering that the richest country on the planet (i.e. the United States) engaged in it for wealth accumulation.

Science knew nothing about genetics, or how they worked, and with many pointing to the Bible as a source for ancestry/ human nature or the traits for certain humans (i.e. blacks), the Left ran with John Locke's idea of The Tabula Rasa. Stating that humans have no innate characteristics, therefore we are all equal and have an equal chances of success in all aspects of the job market, social arenas, and even academia. All disparities and inequalities were due to the sexist, racist, or xenophobic cultures. Long considered to be stupid savages, Blacks were finally on equal footing with whites, with other minorities joining them.

Those that opposed such an idea were portrayed as racists and those who embraced eugenics. The United States having an appalling record of eugenics theories as well as practices during the early years of the 20th Century the left pushed hard for this ideology. It fit well with their ideologies such as Marxism, with Marx stating that man recreates himself in his productive capacities, therefore many Marxists and Communists disdained homosexuality as they saw that it was a bourgeois affectation. A trait that was due to "bourgeois decadence", homosexuality was seen as a threat to many on the Left.

Being able to point the finger to the bourgeois culture for the oppression of the working classes worked well. However it got out of hand when the idea of the "Super Organism" was conceived by Leftists, stating that culture was a monolith separate from the world, that it was a self contained system that impressed upon the minds of humans anything from their likes and dislikes to language capabilities. B.F. Skinner was a major backer of the Blank Slate stating that there is no such thing as human nature, his theories of course stating that you can train anyone to do anything as long as they are willing by simply repeating it over and over again.

This has led to the problem that the Left faces today with things such as homosexuality. We didn't recognize homosexuality as a part of human nature for a long time, and with naturalist Romantic thought of anything that is human nature is good and just, we faced a problem in the 60s as evolutionary psychology began to take the psychological scene. But we don't, as a whole, really understand what genes are. When we hear the words "gay gene" or "murder gene" we think that there is specific outlined set of the genome allocated to those behaviors but they're not. In fact it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Behavior is influenced by genetics, not caused by it. So for demonstration purposes imagine that you are a block of clay about to pushed through a mold. The mold represents your genes with the pressure to push the clay through the mold is the environment. Depending on how much and when the pressure is applied to a specific section of the clay, along with the composition of the clay being the biological environment in the womb, determines how you as a person will develop.

So if someone has a genetic predisposition to angering quickly, something that is passed down on the fathers side, but can be exacerbated by the different hormones in a mother womb and observing as a child how your parents respond to stress and pain, we can come to see that the child has a higher ability to control themselves. This does not mean under any circumstances that if that person does something in a fit of rage that they should be let off the hook. In fact they should be punished just the same in order so that we can discourage any others that might look to get away with their own plots with the defense of "my genes made me do it". To state clearly, What is empirical or innate does not translate to ethics or policy.

(To be clear I am in favor or prison abolition, "punishment", in my mind, would be depending on the crime far less than the 10 to 20 years most people spend in prison for assault, instead (against depending on the severity) the sentence would be 1-3 year and psychological treatment.)

The same goes for homosexuality it is a selected trait through evolution, there are various reasons/theories as to why, but it is something that cannot be changed. However that does not mean that we should accept it on that basis, pedophilia could be fought for along those lines as well.

If we all claim to be looking at life through the old "Scientific Marxist" point of view well then let's be scientists and view the world as it truly is, not as to fit our ideological predilections. We should see that homosexuality when conducted with two minors or two adults consenting is at the very least a victim-less crime. Filled with love, lust, commitment, and a palpable human quality, homosexuality is nothing but a variation on the spectrum of sexual orientation. Leaving Gay people among the happiest couples according to many surveys. In my case it is one the most beautiful and fulfilling experiences that I have ever had in my life and I couldn't be happier.

To start off on how this will impact us and how we can use it I will outline two very important areas that, especially in the United States, could use the surge of some Leftist ideology: Gun Control and Education.

Gun control in the United States is in dire need, the majority of the people want it, the Left wants it, and most parents want it, therefore why can't we get it? Reactionaries (so called conservatives) are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that it never sees the House floor. One of their main weapons in their arsenal of casuistry is that of the Hobbesian Trap: where you someone else has a bat therefore you want a knife, then because you have that knife they reach for a gun, before long you are caught up in a evolutionary tail spin of danger. However well documented in evolutionary psychology this is cast the Left draws back from this realization ignoring this natural reality because according to our assumptions I outlined earlier it would defeat us or even excuse the insane amount of weapons in this country. However if we were able to toss aside the nonsense of the blank slate we would come to realize that we as the Left can get out ahead of this by instead of saying "Good guy with gun kills bad guy with gun", we could say no one has a a gun. As Noam Chomsky states, "if the goal is security... then the goal would be disarmament", eliminating the Hobbesian Trap without a drop of blood or saving face.

Education is of a course a big topic so I will try and stick to the highpoints. Education does not do what it is purported to do for the general population, however it does exactly what the powerful wants: create a stupefied population trapped in jingoistic ideology. And even for this purpose it is failing, with test scores (the major stick with which measure intelligence and retaining of knowledge) being among the lowest in the world as especially in minority communities. But there is one sector that does as well as Sweden, the rich private schools where children are taught how to think instead of what to think. They, from childhood, are brought up in affluence (what many historians agree to be the necessary ingredient for a culture to flourish), where they want and want for nothing. Their teachers are specialized in child psychology and are well adept in their topic. The Left says we need smarter testing because anything you pour into an empty vessel (or write on a blank slate) should be able to be regurgitated later. We also point to wealth, food, housing, and safety disparities in minority neighborhoods as a major factor, and though I'm sure it is, white middle class America is doing only marginally better. To solve this we must embrace and try to understand that way children learn things, so we can deconstruct and offer up complex ideas to the tailored audience. Not to be absorbed like sponges but to be explored on an open path, Montessori Schools are a great example. Eliminate most testing and work on application along with the way the student grasps that concept.

But why does it matter to see things in this light and understand how genetics work?
1. For practical reasons: the better we understands ourselves and other humans the more refined and coherent our ideology becomes
2. We Don't Look Out of Touch: though yes it's nice to be dedicated to class struggle and know what a dialectic is, explaining our ideas in this way is cumbersome, high-minded, and excludes major parts of the population who aren't captured by political theory as we.
3. Moving Ahead: as we move forward we can have coherent and scientifically based discussions that will lead to every better ideas.

To demonstrate all of this brought together let's think of some future issues that the Left cannot fight for or against based on our current base. An interesting case would be pedophilia. The word itself strikes fear into the hearts of everyone, as Christopher Hitchens once said, "shake your head and weep if you feel the urge to touch a child". As an inborn trait, it is something that the Left on our current feet cannot understand, it is inborn but from testimony and psychological studies we know that is deadly harmful to the children involved, and therefore must be detrimental, opposite from that of homosexuality. As an Anarchist would understand it, "two people are not on equal footing and therefore it is invalid". So what are we to do with those with this predilection? The answer to this I cannot answer, but interesting commentary has been given on the topic by Dan Savage during the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, which I implore you to look at.

However for the question of class struggle and oppression it could be viewed as almost every minority in America, they are relegated their own socioeconomic class altogether, with many studies showing that LGBT individuals are poorer than their straight counterparts. But in the United States with organizations like GLAAD and the HRC turning to corporate sponsors and advertisers, the LGBT movement is being lead (hijacked) by big business. After all if a CEO is Gay who cares? Are they bringing in more money than they were last quarter is the only question in need of answering.

Kind of like Pink Washing Israel, stating that Israel is open to LGBT individuals therefore their crimes on the West Bank are slightly less deploring, we are first rejected by society, then embraced, and finally made a profit off of. That could most definitely be our exploitation, but nearly all of the LGBT community are not like us. They are not concerned with capitalistic exploitation; their jobs, their partners, their lives are their concern considering they are already disadvantaged by something they cannot control. It's not bad just different. This is our job as intellectuals on the Left, to understand these diverse, broad, cerebral topics and loop them together in a coherent message to inform the public what is happening to them, but more importantly, what they as individuals and as a class can do about it.

I hope this starts a discussion on how we as the Left can move beyond this inane theory and into the twenty first century. "To the daring belongs the future"- Emma Goldman.

[Tenka]

I had a wierd discussion here on revleft where some users argued that the fight against heteronormativity was something socialists should embrace as a anticapitalist position since the heteronormativity is the product of capitalism (just like racism or sexism).

Just to clear, i am fully pro-gay rights and defend the liberal rights of LGBT-people.

The thing is i do not see how the sexuality would be a product of class oppression. Can anyone explain this to me?

As far as I know none has said sexuality is a product of class oppression. How does heteronormativity equal sexuality?

Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) with natural roles in life. It asserts that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation or only norm, and states that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sexes.
While I think this is off a little, since it gives heteronormativity a kind of involvement of consciousness which is often not present, it is a decent enough (broad) definition of the word which may help you to clarify your question. And yes, what is defined is a product of class society (a pre-bourgeois one which has been consolidated at any rate).

[Remus Bleys]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/sex-class-struggle.htm here. This has some definite problems with it, but it's a rather good read.

[Revolver]

Sexuality (in terms of sexual orientation or homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality) itself is not the product of class oppression, clearly. Those relationships (and even the identity) exist across the temporal and spatial spectrum, from prehistory to today, from the Middle East to North America. Heteronormativity is a different matter altogether, and is a social phenomenon that can be analyzed using class analysis. This may in fact explain some early socialist hostility to homosexuality, since it would have been misperceived as an indulgence of the elite, at least to the extent that it was visible. The vast majority of gay men and women were invisible as such. In fact the privilege to "indulge" required a certain level of discretion, which helps explain EM Forster's quote from a note to Maurice: "Conse­quently the Wolfenden recommendations will be indefinitely rejected, police prosecutions will continue and Clive on the bench will continue to sentence Alec in the dock. Maurice may get off." He is referencing the plot of the novel, in which Alec plays the role of a working class gay man who has an affair with the novel's namesake, who in turn rejects upper middle class power and privilege by consummating an affair with Alec as opposed to the more cautious Clive, who is unwilling to act on his own homosexuality not only out of fear of imprisonment but also loss of social status.

Heteronormativity is a relatively broad term that encompasses everything from totalitarian repression of homosexuals to a more tolerant regime well short of acceptance of homosexuality on equal footing with heterosexuality. There was a point where it did play a much stronger role in class repression. As Englels (himself a homophobe) rightly intuited, the sexual division of labor in the industrial society's households reflected the class divisions outside of it: the men were the bourgeoisie, women the proletariat. And although Engels' own prejudices blinded him to it, homophobia was a social phenomenon that reinforced this division by deterring any transgression of those social roles. It was reinforced (and even amplified) by the Abrahamic religions of course, but they did not invent homophobia or heteronormativity.

Unsurprisingly, the societies that are most violently opposed to homosexuality (i.e., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban) are also the most gender segregated in the world. But even here, that repression is waived when it serves a particular purpose. For example, Saudis have a reputation for being pretty prone to male on male action, as do men in Afghanistan. Given that you can be punished for being alone with a member of the opposite sex, it isn't that surprising that Saudi Arabia tolerates clandestine and furtive gay relationships, as long as they don't become political or threaten to provoke a reactionary backlash.

Today, that historical link between homophobia and the capitalist economy has been upended and even reversed in important ways. Why wouldn't capitalists embrace LGBT rights? It is good marketing, for one thing, giving the Chamber of Commerce crowd a plausible claim to "social responsibility." Moreover, it costs virtually nothing to endorse marriage equality, and the cost of adding sexual orientation to the list of anti-discrimination categories is likewise negligible. There's no strong need to maintain the sexual division of labor, and the organized religions that opposed gay rights have lost most of their influence.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The thing is i do not see how the sexuality would be a product of class oppression. Can anyone explain this to me?
Sexual orientation and heteronormativity are two different things. The former is inherent to everyone, while the latter is an ideological structure. See the definition Tenka posted above.

[Sinred]

Sexual orientation and heteronormativity are two different things. The former is inherent to everyone, while the latter is an ideological structure. See the definition Tenka posted above.

Whats the difference then between heteronormativity and homophobia?
So (i been sleeping for 4 hours tonight, little slow right now) its more about gender roles and how different genders are expected to act, rather then sexuality?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Whats the difference then between heteronormativity and homophobia?
Homophobia is the worst manifestation of heteronormativity.


its more about gender roles and how different genders are expected to act, rather then sexuality?
It's about both gender roles and sexual orientation.

[Sinred]

Homophobia is the worst manifestation of heteronormativity.


It's about both gender roles and sexual orientation.

Thanks for clearing it out for me somewhat.
So in other words: the manifestation of heteronormativity creates homophobia. If so, is this related to any form of oppression by capitalism and what would the alternative to heteronormativity be (how would it express itself?)?

I guess im asking. How is capitalism related to heteronormativity/homophobia other then by conservative values that follows with some right-wing ideologys?

[Црвена]

The whole idea that there is a "normal," that people should conform to is a product of class society. The ruling class want to divert the attention of the masses from the real issues and make us feel like we have to act a certain way in order to be accepted into society so that they can stay in power and we don't rebel, so they tell us that being LGBT is wrong, we should be ashamed of ourselves if we are LGBT, and, subtly, that the problems of society exist because of people who aren't personifications of this standard of normal that they have created. If there was no ruling class and no class system, this wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have these pressures to conform.

[Sinred]

The whole idea that there is a "normal," that people should conform to is a product of class society. The ruling class want to divert the attention of the masses from the real issues and make us feel like we have to act a certain way in order to be accepted into society so that they can stay in power and we don't rebel, so they tell us that being LGBT is wrong, we should be ashamed of ourselves if we are LGBT, and, subtly, that the problems of society exist because of people who aren't personifications of this standard of normal that they have created. If there was no ruling class and no class system, this wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have these pressures to conform.


But isnt "normal", in the context of sexuality, the standard?
I mean since sexuality is not something you choose, the majority of people will (prolly) always be straight (but hopefully more tolerant).

By phrases most right wingers (at least in europe) are supporting LGBT-rights. They offcourse are also against racism and sexism. Those are still, despite liberals fine phrases, useful tools to divide the working class and they have a economic base from which this derrive.
I just dont see how capitalism reinforce homophobia as a tool.
Homophobia is obviously horrid and immoral, but so is fundamentalist hate against atheists. Religion does however not exactly thrive in todays liberal states.
And tolerance for LGBT within liberal capitalism keep on peaking. In fact, liberalism encourage people to express their individuality.

What does capitalism gain from having a homophobic approach other then as a instrument to force on conservatism? In my experience (at least here) homophobia is on the downlow even thou racism and sexism keeps peaking.
I never hear anyone blaming their misery, and other symptoms of failing capitalism, on gay people for example.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But isnt "normal", in the context of sexuality, the standard? I mean since sexuality is not something you choose, the majority of people will (prolly) always be straight (but hopefully more tolerant).
I think, absent ideological constraints, bisexuality would be the most common orientation.


What does capitalism gain from having a homophobic approach other then as a instrument to force on conservatism?
Heteronormativity, not homophobia, is what is promoted ideologically under capitalism.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Whats the difference then between heteronormativity and homophobia?
So (i been sleeping for 4 hours tonight, little slow right now) its more about gender roles and how different genders are expected to act, rather then sexuality?

There are a lot of LGBT folks that are hetero-normative. Hell the HRC is full of hetero-normative ideas in what they fight for. Marriage in itself is hetero-normative (as well as inherently oppressive.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, so, for the capitalist mode of production to function, a proletariat is necessary. But the proletariat is not generated spontaneously, and nowadays you can't even get that many new proletarians by ruining the petite bourgeoisie. No, the proletariat needs to be reproduced, and the means of reproducing the proletariat under capitalism is the family. This means that domestic and reproductive labour is atomised and preformed by women, and that each family shares (to an extent) its resources (as opposed to broader forms of communal sharing that might endanger the creation of new workers forced to sell their labour-power).

Now this requires rigid gender roles. From the family proceeds the oppression of women. And from the oppression of women proceeds the oppression of homosexuals and transsexuals. The homosexual is odious to the bourgeoisie chiefly as a gender-nonconformist, someone who rejects the rigid roles that are necessary for the continued reproduction of the proletariat. Hence, capitalism causes homophobia (the structural violence against gay people - "heteronormativity" concerns attitudes, which are of secondary importance here). And homophobic violence still exists everywhere capitalism exists, some token expressions of opposition to homophobia notwithstanding.

[Sinred]

Alright, so, for the capitalist mode of production to function, a proletariat is necessary. But the proletariat is not generated spontaneously, and nowadays you can't even get that many new proletarians by ruining the petite bourgeoisie. No, the proletariat needs to be reproduced, and the means of reproducing the proletariat under capitalism is the family. This means that domestic and reproductive labour is atomised and preformed by women, and that each family shares (to an extent) its resources (as opposed to broader forms of communal sharing that might endanger the creation of new workers forced to sell their labour-power).

Now this requires rigid gender roles. From the family proceeds the oppression of women. And from the oppression of women proceeds the oppression of homosexuals and transsexuals. The homosexual is odious to the bourgeoisie chiefly as a gender-nonconformist, someone who rejects the rigid roles that are necessary for the continued reproduction of the proletariat. Hence, capitalism causes homophobia (the structural violence against gay people - "heteronormativity" concerns attitudes, which are of secondary importance here). And homophobic violence still exists everywhere capitalism exists, some token expressions of opposition to homophobia notwithstanding.

Really? Capitalists opposes homosexuality because there are to little workers produced? This could have been true if
1) it actually effected the labour force (or the resources for it) somewhat
2) if LGBT people were not able to work
3) if homosexuality was something people decided to be or
4) married women (or women overall) didnt work during capitalism.
Neither of the above is true.
Sexuality doesnt effect the production forces, or the bourgeoisies relation with the proletariat anymore then music taste or subculture.
This argument could have some relevance if the bourgeoisie was at its base ideologically conservative. It can be. But capitalism as such, are extremely flexible according to its current interests. Todays western capitalism are for example way more liberal that it is conservative.
Neither does it explain how capitallism itself disolves the "classical family structure" by putting women to work, supporting LGBT-rights and putting the individual role above the family unit.

[Five Year Plan]

I had a wierd discussion here on revleft where some users argued that the fight against heteronormativity was something socialists should embrace as a anticapitalist position since the heteronormativity is the product of capitalism (just like racism or sexism).

Just to clear, i am fully pro-gay rights and defend the liberal rights of LGBT-people.

The thing is i do not see how the sexuality would be a product of class oppression. Can anyone explain this to me?

I have a question: do you see how the nuclear family is functional for the reproduction of bourgeois ideology and capitalist social relations?

If you are dealing with a basic dimension of human existence, like sexuality, it's going to be intertwined with the class struggle, which (believe it or not) is fought by humans.

[Sinred]

I think, absent ideological constraints, bisexuality would be the most common orientation.


Heteronormativity, not homophobia, is what is promoted ideologically under capitalism.


How do you know the base of human sexuality is bisexual?
Im not a evolutionary psychologist but pretty much all research ive come across disapproves of that . It would also assume that heterosexuality is something forced on us. Something that we have been learned to be and that everyone then can be bisexual.

[Five Year Plan]

How do you know the base of human sexuality is bisexual? Im not a evolutionary psychologist but pretty much all research ive come across disapproves of that

And what research is this?

[Sinred]

And what research is this?


Everyone with a good understanding of evolution as well as a somewhat unified core of people who has focused on the subject.

Right of the batt: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

Most science shows that it is genetics combined with several psychodynamics factors who decide your sexual orientation.
Its in other words not something that is forced on us or thought.

[Five Year Plan]

Everyone with a good understanding of evolution as well as a somewhat unified core of people who has focused on the subject.

Right of the batt: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

Most science shows that it is genetics combined with several psychodynamics factors who decide your sexual orientation.
Its in other words not something that is forced on us or thought.

Eh, what? You claimed that "most research" shows that the vast majority of people are heterosexual, not bisexual or homosexual. I asked you what studies these were, and you link me to some newspaper report about a single study talking about how genetics might influence a MALE's sexual predilections, with nothing about the extent of those predilections in the general population. (I refuse to use "orientation," since there is absolutely no scientific consensus whatsoever about what a sexual orientation is. It is NOT a scientific concept.)

It's obvious you quickly scrambled to find something on the web that looked scientific and related to sexuality to back up your initial claim, but that you ended up finding something that had nothing to do with that claim. Why don't you just admit that you have zero knowledge of what scientific studies say about the extent of homosexual behavior or bisexual behavior among primates generally, and humans specifically, much less what literature from an evolutionary-scientific perspective might say?

I am also suspecting, based on your posting history on this question, that you are some closet homophobe trying to prevent your precious class struggle from being "tainted" by issues of homosexuality, whatever your denials to the contrary.

[Sinred]

Eh, what? You claimed that "most research" shows that the vast majority of people are heterosexual, not bisexual or homosexual. I asked you what studies these were, and you link me to some newspaper report about a single study talking about how genetics might influence a MALE's sexual predilections. (I refuse to use "orientation," since there is absolutely no scientific consensus whatsoever about what a sexual orientation is. It is NOT a scientific concept.)

It's obvious you quickly scrambled to find something on the web that looked scientific and related to sexuality to back up your initial claim, but it ended up finding something that had nothing to do with that claim. Why don't you just admit that you have zero knowledge of what scientific studies say about the extent of homosexual behavior or bisexual behavior among primates generally, and humans specifically, much less literature from an evolutionary-scientific perspective?

I am also suspecting, based on your posting history on this question, that you are some closet homophobe trying to prevent your precious class struggle from being "tainted" by issues of homosexuality, whatever your denials to the contrary.


The first part is somewhat true since i really need to go now. Didnt say i sat at home with extensive studies in front of me. If you dont agree with the study or the search for a gay gene, feel free to post some actual arguments against it instead of yelling homophobe as soon as you get the chance.
And yes, i have read a lot about it. Not as much as i used to but yes i know somewhat what i am talking about.
But feel free to post some links for me i can look into. I didnt start this thread to get into fights.



I am also suspecting, based on your posting history on this question, that you are some closet homophobe trying to prevent your precious class struggle from being "tainted" by issues of homosexuality, whatever your denials to the contrary.

Off course you think, you are obviously easily offended.
I oppose postmodernists and other middleclass nutters who are more interested in identity politics then the actual reality and the people in it.
Thats however not why i created this thread. I did it because i am genuinely interested about how a marxist believes that LGBT has any relevance to capitalism as in mode of production.
How that would make me a closet homophobe is interesting since i live in Barcelona, several friends are gay, i been attending courts to support people attacked by homophobe assholes, i have fight back nazis at pride parades and, last but not least, REALLY do not give a f-k what two consensual adults do with each other out of affection.


Laters

[Five Year Plan]

The first part is somewhat true since i really need to go now. Didnt say i sat at home with extensive studies in front of me. If you dont agree with the study or the search for a gay gene, feel free to post some actual arguments against it instead of yelling homophobe as soon as you get the chance.
And yes, i have read a lot about it. Not as much as i used to but yes i know somewhat what i am talking about.
But feel free to post some links for me i can look into. I didnt start this thread to get into fights.

The issue isn't whether I agree or disagree with the study. The issue is that you cited the study as evidence that you've seen many studies claiming that most people are naturally (exclusively) heterosexual, and the study makes no such claim. It has nothing to say about the issue at all.

If you've "read a lot about it," I don't think it's unreasonable for people here to expect you to cite a number of studies on this issue on request, yet all you've managed to do is provide a link to a news stories about one study that isn't about the issue you were talking about at all. That hardly raises our confidence level that we're dealing with somebody who is seriously engaging us on this issue, and isn't just bundling all sorts of homophobic assumptions into posts here.


Off course you think, you are obviously easily offended.
I oppose postmodernists and other middleclass nutters who are more interested in identity politics then the actual reality and the people in it.
Thats however not why i created this thread. I did it because i am genuinely interested about how a marxist believes that LGBT has any relevance to capitalism as in mode of production.
How that would make me a closet homophobe is interesting since i live in Barcelona, several friends are gay, i been attending courts to support people attacked by homophobe assholes, i have fight back nazis at pride parades and, last but not least, REALLY do not give a f-k what two consensual adults do with each other out of affection.

Let's be clear here, because you seem to have a hard time understanding this: starting a thread about the link between class struggle and (homo)sexuality doesn't make you a homophobe. What makes you appear homophobic is (1) writing off as "middle class," "nutters" and "postmodenists" anybody who insists on a strong link between the maintenance of heteronormativity and the maintenance of capitalism; (2) claiming that you have reams of evidence demonstrating that most people are exclusively heterosexual, but when pressed, can't provide any evidence for this at all, apart from your wishful thinking.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Really? Capitalists opposes homosexuality because there are to little workers produced? This could have been true if
1) it actually effected the labour force (or the resources for it) somewhat
2) if LGBT people were not able to work
3) if homosexuality was something people decided to be or
4) married women (or women overall) didnt work during capitalism.
Neither of the above is true.
Sexuality doesnt effect the production forces, or the bourgeoisies relation with the proletariat anymore then music taste or subculture.
This argument could have some relevance if the bourgeoisie was at its base ideologically conservative. It can be. But capitalism as such, are extremely flexible according to its current interests. Todays western capitalism are for example way more liberal that it is conservative.
Neither does it explain how capitallism itself disolves the "classical family structure" by putting women to work, supporting LGBT-rights and putting the individual role above the family unit.

So, honest question, did you actually read my post, or would that take away too much time from your crusade against some imagined "post-modernists"? Because, just to give an example, I never claimed that homosexuals are unable to work. Quite the contrary. But homosexuality threatens the rigid gender roles that secure the reproduction of the proletariat as the proletariat, and thus threaten the rate of profit. It doesn't even have to be considerable - capital by its nature aims to crush all obstacles to its rule, even if they are relatively unimportant. It hounds and kills unionists even if their strikes are ineffectual, for example.

And no, capitalism does not dissolve "the classical family structure", but reinforces with with hysterical anti-sex witch-hunts. And capitalism "supports LGBT-rights" [sic]? What planet do you live on?


Off course you think, you are obviously easily offended.
I oppose postmodernists and other middleclass nutters who are more interested in identity politics then the actual reality and the people in it.
Thats however not why i created this thread. I did it because i am genuinely interested about how a marxist believes that LGBT has any relevance to capitalism as in mode of production.
How that would make me a closet homophobe is interesting since i live in Barcelona, several friends are gay, i been attending courts to support people attacked by homophobe assholes, i have fight back nazis at pride parades and, last but not least, REALLY do not give a f-k what two consensual adults do with each other out of affection.

Well that's nice. Do you want a cookie? Look, if you ever find yourself saying "but some of my best friends are gay/black/women/trans*/Roma/Jewish/Arab/whatever", it's time to step away from the keyboard, have a glass of water, and think about what you're saying and why you need to resort to these ridiculous "arguments". Oh, and saying "you are obviously easily offended" is some first-grade internalised homophobia. Oh no, a gay person objected to something I said, they must be easily offended.

Not to mention your story doesn't even make sense. Do you live in Barcelona or Sweden (don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question)? Was there some kind of war I'm not aware of where the Swedes went rogue and annexed large swathes of the Bourbon monarchy?

The point is, ever since you arrived on this site you've been engaged in some grand quixotic crusade against alleged "post-modernists" who taint the purity of the class struggle with their faggot concerns. We've all been through this, we all know people like this. Wohlforth was the poster boy for such bone-headed workerism. And guess what? Not only was Timmy Wohlforth a thoroughly disgusting reactionary prick, he was also a lousy socialist whose theoretical ruminations aren't fit to be used as toilet paper. Because if you can't understand things like the reproduction of the proletariat, precarisation of female labour etc., you don't understand capitalism.

[Maraam]

I can't post links I don't think (need 25 posts) but the articles "On the Social Construction of Sex (Part 1)" by anti-imperialism.com and "Trans People and the Dialectics of Sex and Gender" by alyx.io both present a [dialectical] materialist understanding of gender that's pretty reflective of contemporary radical thought (from my experience in trans organizing and discussion, online and offline, mainstream radical literature is far behind the lived experiences of most LGBT people), and the book The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses by Oyeronke Oyewumi is probably the best case study in how biology as a paradigm only recently took global hegemony through capitalist/Western imperialism.

Heteronormativity stems from gender, which stems from class. Sexuality as categories only developed in order to retain the class power of the day, and for various reasons outlined by posters above ensures bourgeoisie power is dominant by reproducing the labour force and providing a hyper-exploited reserve army of women's labour. Homosexuality, broadly speaking, is beginning to be assimilated via organizations such as the HRC because those organizations have tailored an image of homosexuality that is passive in the face of gender, through which we get misogynistic gay men, hypersexualized lesbians, and so on. This heteronormative, assimilated gay rights movement ultimately supports the continuation of gendered exploitation by not critiquing capitalism. Essentially, heteronormativity arises directly from class contradictions and can only be removed by resolving those contradictions. Ignoring heteronormativity and acting like its a side issue will prevent one from resolving those class contradictions.

[Sinred]

So, honest question, did you actually read my post, or would that take away too much time from your crusade against some imagined "post-modernists"? Because, just to give an example, I never claimed that homosexuals are unable to work. Quite the contrary.

Neither did i claimed you belive that. And yeah i read your post, sorta abstract when you dont actually fill out the gaps.
I do think postmodernism is one of the biggest dangers within the left and should be something left to liberals or just plain philantropes to work with. With that said, i dont mind learning and reevaluate my opinions which is partly why created this thread.
Even more so i created this question about LGBT because i honestly dont know. The argument here has so far been lousy at best. But the post above me could have some interesting info.


But homosexuality threatens the rigid gender roles that secure the reproduction of the proletariat as the proletariat, and thus threaten the rate of profit. It doesn't even have to be considerable - capital by its nature aims to crush all obstacles to its rule, even if they are relatively unimportant. It hounds and kills unionists even if their strikes are ineffectual, for example.

Did you even read my post or are you just very happy about regurgitating? If it wasnt clear to you: i meant the reproduction system within capitalism, not however if homosexual people can work or not (it was rethrorical).
This answers literally nothing of my arguments. And, If this were true, how would you explain western liberalism and individualism as capitalist conformity?
Your analasys would (barely) be relevant during the sixties.


And no, capitalism does not dissolve "the classical family structure", but reinforces with with hysterical anti-sex witch-hunts. And capitalism "supports LGBT-rights" [sic]? What planet do you live on?


Do you live in a western country??? Because the countrys i live and has lived in have gay movements that are more or less controlled by liberals (and i mean ideological liberals). Todays capitalism doesnt necessary disolve the family structures but it is certainly not keeping it together. Its not relevant for the reproduction. And how it economically would work is also a mystery since LGBT-people doesnt make up any significant proportion of the people and neither does it have any problems with reproduction within capitalism.
With that logic i can only guess you also believe subcultures and sexual liberation is something threatening capitalism. So radical...




Well that's nice. Do you want a cookie? Look, if you ever find yourself saying "but some of my best friends are gay/black/women/trans*/Roma/Jewish/Arab/whatever", it's time to step away from the keyboard, have a glass of water, and think about what you're saying and why you need to resort to these ridiculous "arguments".

Do you see how silly claims gets silly answers? You are absolutly right.
I should not have to resort to this form arguments in the first place.
It is almost as low as yelling homophobe as soon as you get critique.


Oh, and saying "you are obviously easily offended" is some first-grade internalised homophobia. Oh no, a gay person objected to something I said, they must be easily offended.

I didnt call you easily offended because you are gay. In fact, i didnt even know you were until i saw it just now! I call you easily offended because your are. But its fun how you proved my point.


Not to mention your story doesn't even make sense. Do you live in Barcelona or Sweden (don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question)? Was there some kind of war I'm not aware of where the Swedes went rogue and annexed large swathes of the Bourbon monarchy?

Yeah i havent updated my revleft-info, what a slaying and clever comment.


The point is, ever since you arrived on this site you've been engaged in some grand quixotic crusade against alleged "post-modernists" who taint the purity of the class struggle with their faggot concerns. We've all been through this, we all know people like this. Wohlforth was the poster boy for such bone-headed workerism. And guess what? Not only was Timmy Wohlforth a thoroughly disgusting reactionary prick, he was also a lousy socialist whose theoretical ruminations aren't fit to be used as toilet paper. Because if you can't understand things like the reproduction of the proletariat, precarisation of female labour etc., you don't understand capitalism.

Pigeonnholing make the thought process so much easier. Your people-templates are interesting but its more interesting if you could actually argue against this guy or did you just have him banned as homophobe [if he actually was a homophobe asshole thats great, im just a little suspicius of your definition of a homophobe].
Please explain to me how the precarisation of female labour proves your anticap LGBT theory.

And so you dont (purposefully?) missunderstand me: just because western liberalism support gay rights doesnt mean it is necessery a bad thing.

[Sinred]

I can't post links I don't think (need 25 posts) but the articles "On the Social Construction of Sex (Part 1)" by anti-imperialism.com and "Trans People and the Dialectics of Sex and Gender" by alyx.io both present a [dialectical] materialist understanding of gender that's pretty reflective of contemporary radical thought (from my experience in trans organizing and discussion, online and offline, mainstream radical literature is far behind the lived experiences of most LGBT people), and the book The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses by Oyeronke Oyewumi is probably the best case study in how biology as a paradigm only recently took global hegemony through capitalist/Western imperialism.

Thanks :thumbup1:


Heteronormativity stems from gender, which stems from class.

How you figure gender steams from class?


Sexuality as categories only developed in order to retain the class power of the day, and for various reasons outlined by posters above ensures bourgeoisie power is dominant by reproducing the labour force and providing a hyper-exploited reserve army of women's labour.

Doesnt this contradict the fact that it actually exists a hyper-exploited reserve army of women's labour, which should be breaking the gender roles on the ground of reproductivity?


Homosexuality, broadly speaking, is beginning to be assimilated via organizations such as the HRC because those organizations have tailored an image of homosexuality that is passive in the face of gender, through which we get misogynistic gay men, hypersexualized lesbians, and so on. This heteronormative, assimilated gay rights movement ultimately supports the continuation of gendered exploitation by not critiquing capitalism. Essentially, heteronormativity arises directly from class contradictions and can only be removed by resolving those contradictions. Ignoring heteronormativity and acting like its a side issue will prevent one from resolving those class contradictions.

I already posted a answer above about the reproduction theory to another poster.
But just so i understand: sexuality is (IYO) something created and forced by the society (based on gender roles)?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Neither did i claimed you belive that. And yeah i read your post, sorta abstract when you dont actually fill out the gaps.
I do think postmodernism is one of the biggest dangers within the left and should be something left to liberals or just plain philantropes to work with. With that said, i dont mind learning and reevaluate my opinions which is partly why created this thread.

What "postmodernism"? Whenever people ask who these alleged postmodernists that are "one of the biggest dangers within the left" are, you change the subject. There are, of course, people who consider themselves to be "postmodernists" in the socialist movement (although most of them are in rad-lib formations), but they are a tiny insignificant minority, and if you think they're a bigger problem than centrists, reformists, State-Department "socialists" and so on... I can't even find anything clever to finish that sentence. That would be simply daft, daft, daft.


Did you even read my post or are you just very happy about regurgitating? If it wasnt clear to you: i meant the reproduction system within capitalism, not however if homosexual people can work or not (it was rethrorical).
This answers literally nothing of my arguments. And, If this were true, how would you explain western liberalism and individualism as capitalist conformity?

I wouldn't explain something that doesn't exist. The rhetoric about individual development and freedom aside, capitalist society rests on aggressive and often murderous family-mongering. Just propose the abolition of the family and see what happens - even when talking to ostensible leftists.


Do you live in a western country??? Because the countrys i live and has lived in have gay movements that are more or less controlled by liberals (and i mean ideological liberals).

And in the Russian empire, the movement for the liberation of Old Believers was controlled to a large extent (despite significant Marxist presence) by the conservative-liberals, the Octobrists. Therefore, by analogy, there was no oppression of Old Believers in the Russian empire. Which is obviously not the case.

The movement for the liberation of women was also controlled by the bourgeoisie from the beginning. So therefore, according to the sort of logic you've used here, there is no oppression of women in bourgeois states. Which is exactly the opposite of what Marx, Engels, Zetkin and others concluded.

Of course liberal currents sometimes demand things that would objectively undermine capitalism if carried out (disarmament for example). That is because the bourgeoisie is, generally speaking, not aware of the nature of its rule - bourgeois ideology conceals the real state of affairs from the bourgeoisie as well as from most proletarians.


Todays capitalism doesnt necessary disolve the family structures but it is certainly not keeping it together.

Except with all the laws that are specifically meant to prop up the family structure. From prohibitions on abortion to laws against homosexuality.


Its not relevant for the reproduction. And how it economically would work is also a mystery since LGBT-people doesnt make up any significant proportion of the people and neither does it have any problems with reproduction within capitalism.

First of all, we don't have reliable statistics about the number of gay people (not to mention people who would be gay without the massive social discouragement). Second, the numbers are irrelevant. Do you think the modern union movement is able to organise a large number of workers for militant action in the neo-colonies? They can just about organise ten workers and then mysteriously get shot with no witnesses. Yet even though the union movement in the neo-colonies is largely impotent, it is still a threat to capitalism and is repressed.


With that logic i can only guess you also believe subcultures and sexual liberation is something threatening capitalism. So radical...

Subcultures generally don't affect the reproduction of the proletariat. Sexual liberation would. That's why it isn't happening. And I'm not going to be lectured on "radicalism" by someone affiliated with the SKP.


Do you see how silly claims gets silly answers? You are absolutly right.
I should not have to resort to this form arguments in the first place.
It is almost as low as yelling homophobe as soon as you get critique.

No, the fact that you have to resort to such "arguments" shows that you've come off as a homophobe to a lot of people. Most people would stop and think about what they're doing but apparently not you.


I didnt call you easily offended because you are gay. In fact, i didnt even know you were until i saw it just now! I call you easily offended because your are. But its fun how you proved my point.

I was talking about your reply to 5YP.


Pigeonnholing make the thought process so much easier. Your people-templates are interesting but its more interesting if you could actually argue against this guy or did you just have him banned as homophobe [if he actually was a homophobe asshole thats great, im just a little suspicius of your definition of a homophobe].

Haha, no, Tim Wohlforth never posted here to the best of my knowledge. In fact I'm not sure the old bastard is still alive. He did post his rants about how the US needs to bomb more Serbs on the Internet in the nineties, but that's about it as far as his Internet activism goes, I think. He used to be the chief of the US "Workers'" League before he bought the wrong printer and brought the wrath of Gerry Healy down on himself. He's famous for the statement that "the working class hates fags, hippies, and womens-libbers, and so do we".


Please explain to me how the precarisation of female labour proves your anticap LGBT theory.

It was an example of how the continued existence of capitalism is intimately connected to social oppression.


And so you dont (purposefully?) missunderstand me: just because western liberalism support gay rights doesnt mean it is necessery a bad thing.

"Necessery" [sic]. You're just digging yourself deeper.

[Sinred]

What "postmodernism"? Whenever people ask who these alleged postmodernists that are "one of the biggest dangers within the left" are, you change the subject. There are, of course, people who consider themselves to be "postmodernists" in the socialist movement (although most of them are in rad-lib formations), but they are a tiny insignificant minority, and if you think they're a bigger problem than centrists, reformists, State-Department "socialists" and so on... I can't even find anything clever to finish that sentence. That would be simply daft, daft, daft.


Let me rephrase it then: identity-politics.
Maybe its an national difference. But in my experience it does a lot of damage in the movement.



I wouldn't explain something that doesn't exist. The rhetoric about individual development and freedom aside, capitalist society rests on aggressive and often murderous family-mongering. Just propose the abolition of the family and see what happens - even when talking to ostensible leftists.

Thats basically what you been doing since the start of this thread.
And no, capitalism is based on maximum profit. Everything else is secondary.
Why would the abolation of family even be a goal of some sort?
Prostitution, a growing trend of couple seperation, a growing portion of women working (at mostly shitjobs) as well as spreading of atheist opinions is something that currently rather seems to be an effect of capitalism.
Or do you see these as "anticapitalist" expressions? I dont think you do.




And in the Russian empire, the movement for the liberation of Old Believers was controlled to a large extent (despite significant Marxist presence) by the conservative-liberals, the Octobrists. Therefore, by analogy, there was no oppression of Old Believers in the Russian empire. Which is obviously not the case.
The movement for the liberation of women was also controlled by the bourgeoisie from the beginning. So therefore, according to the sort of logic you've used here, there is no oppression of women in bourgeois states. Which is exactly the opposite of what Marx, Engels, Zetkin and others concluded.

Im not saying that the LGBT-movement couldnt be dominated by socialists, it would be nice if it were. What im saying is it does not equal any form of indirect anticapitalist struggle. And its not even comparable to the women struggle who is based on economic structures, not identity.



Of course liberal currents sometimes demand things that would objectively undermine capitalism if carried out (disarmament for example). That is because the bourgeoisie is, generally speaking, not aware of the nature of its rule - bourgeois ideology conceals the real state of affairs from the bourgeoisie as well as from most proletarians.

I have a hard time to see how sexist ads, prostitution, shitjobs for women and drug liberalism would be efficent tools for the nuclear family.
If anything its a hallmark for modern capitalism.


Except with all the laws that are specifically meant to prop up the family structure. From prohibitions on abortion to laws against homosexuality.

Yeah, i have however not run into any of that at home. Thou, i know it exists in spain. But this seems more to be related to a conservative ideology than any real structures.


First of all, we don't have reliable statistics about the number of gay people (not to mention people who would be gay without the massive social discouragement). Second, the numbers are irrelevant. Do you think the modern union movement is able to organise a large number of workers for militant action in the neo-colonies? They can just about organise ten workers and then mysteriously get shot with no witnesses. Yet even though the union movement in the neo-colonies is largely impotent, it is still a threat to capitalism and is repressed.

I see your point but wheter or not unions become an actual threat to capitalism is if it actually fullfill its purpose. If it doesnt effect the modes or production or any economic factor, via reforms (to the extent it does something good), strikes or revolution, it does not change anything.
Thats what counts.
Even if 25% of the population came out as gay it wouldnt effect capitalism.
If that were true, capitalism would also indirect oppose drugs, organized crime, most forms of subcultures, climate change and even its own wars. Capitalism is a economic system, not an conservative ideology, and the lead motive is fast profits. These are more important than any necissity for labour reproduction (which reproduce anyway!)



Subcultures generally don't affect the reproduction of the proletariat. Sexual liberation would. That's why it isn't happening. And I'm not going to be lectured on "radicalism" by someone affiliated with the SKP.

By your logic animal liberation, just to take a example, would also be a "anticapitalist struggle" since it fundamentally opposes the profit interests for livestock capitalists. Several subculture props for abolation of the classical family structure, wouldnt that be an expression of anticapitalism as well?
I am not opposed to sexual liberation. But in background of sexist ads and prostitution, i doubt it would per se be a anticapitalist stance.
I know sexual liberation doesnt equal prostitution, but the question is how it manifests during capitalism.
How would even an abolation of the nuclear family effect capitalism?
The working class still multiply, with or without the nuclear family, and it does not effect the reproduction of labour.
And I am not, and have never been, a member of SKP.


No, the fact that you have to resort to such "arguments" shows that you've come off as a homophobe to a lot of people. Most people would stop and think about what they're doing but apparently not you.

You call me homophobe and when i defend myself i try to explain who i am.
Would it even made any difference if i gave you a simple "No" on that claim. I dont think it would.
Atleast this stopped the homophobe-rant.



Haha, no, Tim Wohlforth never posted here to the best of my knowledge. In fact I'm not sure the old bastard is still alive. He did post his rants about how the US needs to bomb more Serbs on the Internet in the nineties, but that's about it as far as his Internet activism goes, I think. He used to be the chief of the US "Workers'" League before he bought the wrong printer and brought the wrath of Gerry Healy down on himself. He's famous for the statement that "the working class hates fags, hippies, and womens-libbers, and so do we".

Sounds like a swell guy....
No but seriously. Obvious misunderstanding. Never heard of the guy.

[Sea]

I had a wierd discussion here on revleft where some users argued that the fight against heteronormativity was something socialists should embrace as a anticapitalist position since the heteronormativity is the product of capitalism (just like racism or sexism).An anticapitalist position.
Just to clear, i am fully pro-gay rights and defend the liberal rights of LGBT-people.I hope this is just sloppy phrasing.
The thing is i do not see how the sexuality would be a product of class oppression. Can anyone explain this to me?As a general rule of thumb, when workers are hating on each other, capitalism usually has something to do with it.

[Five Year Plan]

Let me rephrase it then: identity-politics.
Maybe its an national difference. But in my experience it does a lot of damage in the movement.

Yes, because straight white people don't have (privileged) identities that are the result of specific configurations of political/class power, right? And bringing that to people's attention just damages the movement against capitalism. The horrors!

[Sinred]

Yes, because straight white people don't have (privileged) identities that are the result of specific configurations of political/class power, right? And bringing that to people's attention just damages the movement against capitalism. The horrors!

No. But putting your focus on identity politics, which these people tend to do is straight up liberal idiocy where class ultimately gets reduced to identity.
You pretty much summed up everything wrong with postmodernist attitude.
The actual tendency is not as bad (and might even have some points!) as the type of people attracted to it. Everything gets reduced to subjectivity.

Grammar nazism and suspicion of homophobia aside.
I feel we gotten somewhat sidetracked.
Lets get back to where we were. What i learned so far is how the theory of LGBT as oppressed by capitalism comes back to the reproduction of labour and (by default) the classic nuclear family.
Its an interesting thought. So lets sum up my questions:
1) how does this work with the fact that capitalism in some way are opposed to the nuclear family as it by profit promotes prostitution, women labour and individualism above family unit (just for example). And how would the preservation of the nuclear family be anymore relevant for capitalism than profit (in the cases they are opposing each other)?
2) why would the nuclear family be anymore relevant as an economic factor when people either way are multiplying (single parenting is also a growing trend) and their kids (at least in west) does survive for future labour.
3) capitalism at its base is about extracting as much capital as possible at shortest time as possible, you must maximize your profit. Everything else is secondary. Why would the nuclear family be the base of capitalism (as someone here claimed)?
4) why would the nuclear family be more relevant for the reproduction of labour than single parenting?
5) so [IN THEORY] this base for oppression of LGBT would sieze within capitalism if we had infinite amount of people to use for labour?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Let me rephrase it then: identity-politics.
Maybe its an national difference. But in my experience it does a lot of damage in the movement.

Well that's nice, but you still haven't answered the question. Who are these people who subscribe to "identity politics" and who damage the movement? The funny thing is, the one party in the US or UK I can think of that might fit the description - the Freedom Socialist Party - is also one of the best parties in the movement (it was partly founded by Dick Fraser, whose analysis of the black question is, I think, one of the best in the Trotskyist movement).

More often than not we see workerists denouncing as "identity politics" everything that addresses the double oppression of women, gay people, national minorities etc.


Thats basically what you been doing since the start of this thread.
And no, capitalism is based on maximum profit. Everything else is secondary.
Why would the abolation of family even be a goal of some sort?
Prostitution, a growing trend of couple seperation, a growing portion of women working (at mostly shitjobs) as well as spreading of atheist opinions is something that currently rather seems to be an effect of capitalism.
Or do you see these as "anticapitalist" expressions? I dont think you do.

Capitalists strive to maximise the rate, not the volume of profit (in most cases the two are maximised at the same time, but that is not necessarily the case - particularly when considering automation etc.). This is not a minor point; it is crucial to understanding how the proletariat is reproduced.

Prostitution has existed for much longer than capitalism has. Pornography as well. And neither institution necessarily undermines the rigid gender roles that capitalism requires (when the bourgeois-feminists in Canada succeeded in banning pornography, the bourgeois state "just happened to" clamp down on gay pornography, leaving heterosexual pornography alone for the most part).

The right to divorce is a reform that was won by the militant women's and socialist movement. As for atheism, the notion that the bourgeoisie, in general, supports atheism is nonsensical - in the former workers' states, the restoration of capitalism coincided with a drastic rise in religious affiliation (of course atheism doesn't impact the bourgeoisie materially, although a Marxist atheism remains an ideological challenge to the prevailing ideology).

The entry of women into the workforce is something women and socialists (Marxist socialists at least) fought for for decades. Eventually the bourgeoisie was forced to cede ground - but it found a way to recuperate the losses by forcing women into the lowest strata of the proletariat (as it does to this day with former non-proletarian toilers in the neo-colonial countries), driving both their own wages and the average wage down. This is not incompatible with the rigid gender roles that capitalism requires women to preform, as most female workers are at the same time housekeepers, mothers and caretakers.

But even if it was the case that pornography, for example, threatens the bourgeoisie materially, would it follow then that no section of the bourgeoisie would produce and finance it? It does not. The individual member of the bourgeoisie (1) doesn't understand capitalism, generally speaking, and (2) cares about his own personal gain over the continuation of the capitalist system. That is why, for example, certain sectors of the bourgeoisie made trade and concession agreements with the Soviet Union.


Yeah, i have however not run into any of that at home. Thou, i know it exists in spain. But this seems more to be related to a conservative ideology than any real structures.

Then you weren't paying attention. Abortion is limited in Sweden as well as in Spain, with abortion being free (or rather "free" given the economic burden it imposes on women) only up to the 18th month, if I'm not mistaken.


I see your point but wheter or not unions become an actual threat to capitalism is if it actually fullfill its purpose. If it doesnt effect the modes or production or any economic factor, via reforms (to the extent it does something good), strikes or revolution, it does not change anything.
Thats what counts.
Even if 25% of the population came out as gay it wouldnt effect capitalism.
If that were true, capitalism would also indirect oppose drugs, organized crime, most forms of subcultures, climate change and even its own wars. Capitalism is a economic system, not an conservative ideology, and the lead motive is fast profits. These are more important than any necissity for labour reproduction (which reproduce anyway!)

The bourgeois state does oppose drugs - you might have noticed there's a so-called "war on drugs" going on - and it does oppose unruly organised crime etc. Not wars, though - because if anything is good for business, it's war.


How would even an abolation of the nuclear family effect capitalism?
The working class still multiply, with or without the nuclear family, and it does not effect the reproduction of labour.

The reproduction of labour is not (just) physical reproduction, but the social reproduction as well - it isn't just a matter of children being born but also being deprived of any opportunity other than wage-labour, and being raised to accept the power structures of capitalism and carry out the orders of the management. For this, the family is needed - which means that the resources of the community are divided between unequal families, the women preform unpaid reproductive and household labour etc. (And it stands to reason that without the family and systematic misogyny the birth rate would fall.)


And I am not, and have never been, a member of SKP.

Well, given that the only other Kommunistiska Partiet was a pro-Albanian groupuscule that wound down in the nineties...


5) so [IN THEORY] this base for oppression of LGBT would sieze within capitalism if we had infinite amount of people to use for labour?

Yeah.

But it's not just that. If there were infinite workers, the cost of labour would go to zero. In fact the cost of reproducing individual labour goes to zero because you don't need to reproduce it. Even if there is an infinite number of workers employed in an infinite number of factories, Hilbert's hotel theorem allows the capitalists to simply replace a worker as soon as one drops dead of starvation.

In short, make a stupid assumption and you get a nonsensical conclusion.

[Five Year Plan]

No. But putting your focus on identity politics, which these people tend to do is straight up liberal idiocy where class ultimately gets reduced to identity.

Who are "these people"? Your approach in this thread has been to criticize *any* focus on homosexuality within revolutionary politics as a misguided "postmodern" distraction with no direct bearing on class politics. Your critics in this thread, including me, have emphasized that sexuality and heteronormativity do have have a direct relationship to class politics. You haven't given a sufficient response to our claims.


You pretty much summed up everything wrong with postmodernist attitude.
The actual tendency is not as bad (and might even have some points!) as the type of people attracted to it. Everything gets reduced to subjectivity.Where have I reduced everything to subjectivity? Was it where I said in my last post that subjectivities under capitalism are the result of class power?


Grammar nazism and suspicion of homophobia aside.
I feel we gotten somewhat sidetracked.
Lets get back to where we were. What i learned so far is how the theory of LGBT as oppressed by capitalism comes back to the reproduction of labour and (by default) the classic nuclear family.
Its an interesting thought. So lets sum up my questions:
1) how does this work with the fact that capitalism in some way are opposed to the nuclear family as it by profit promotes prostitution, women labour and individualism above family unit (just for example). And how would the preservation of the nuclear family be anymore relevant for capitalism than profit (in the cases they are opposing each other)?Capitalism doesn't "oppose" the nuclear family. It requires the nuclear family. Prostitution is an example of an oppositional culture or practice that is compatible with capitalism so long as it does not grow so widespread and accepted that it begins to threaten the nuclear family. Capitalist society is perfectly fine with prostitution, as long as it remains a ridiculed, marginalized, and stigmatized practice.


2) why would the nuclear family be anymore relevant as an economic factor when people either way are multiplying (single parenting is also a growing trend) and their kids (at least in west) does survive for future labour.And single parents are having an increasingly difficult time making ends mean, often pressuring single parents to enter into sexual relationships or cohabitation arrangements out of sheer necessity. Coincidentally, these resemble the arrangement of the nuclear family which is a site of both biological reproduction and capitalist consumption.


3) capitalism at its base is about extracting as much capital as possible at shortest time as possible, you must maximize your profit. Everything else is secondary. Why would the nuclear family be the base of capitalism (as someone here claimed)?Because capitalism requires that workers reproduce their labor power on a daily basis, while also ensuring the reproduction of the next generation of workers, it imposes structural constraints and pressures and incentives on the arrangements that are most conducive to its maximization of profit. One of these is the devaluation of female labor, due to the fact that women are the biological bearers of children and are therefore expected to take some time out of their professional lives to go through the process of actually bearing a child. The devaluing of female labor then promotes patriarchal attitudes in other dimensions of social life, including sexuality, where a woman is thought to require the sexual "control" and supervision of a male authority figure. And on and on.


4) why would the nuclear family be more relevant for the reproduction of labour than single parenting?Because the costs of raising a child in the present day almost always require a two-income household.

[Wuggums47]

I don't believe that capitalism and homophobia are linked, but I do believe that it is indicative that our culture is oppressive. From what I've seen, most anticapitalists are opposed to discrimination, but I think that's just because they are both logical viewpoints that logical people are likely to hold.