"On The Jewish Question" & Queer Pride

[Sentinel]

In the thread "gay in iran" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47036&st=0&#entry1292032627), NovelGentry said following:


We're reading "On the Jewish Question" for a study group over at the RA forums... it's interesting to see some of Marx's points about religion have now seen full recognition in other social areas.

To not hijack the thread in question further, I have started a new one. While the topic is about dicrimination, it does in my opinion touch revolutionary theory in general, so I started it in the Theory forum.

If admins/mods think it belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it.

Since being queer is clearly not a religion, or a choice to abandon, I reckon Gent by his statement meant that the queer cannot be liberated as long as the workers aren't liberated, that the oppression of sexual minorities is part of class oppression, and queer activists therefore are egoistic to demand emancipation.


Originally posted by Marx; On The Jewish Question
The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation.

Bruno Bauer replies to them: No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule.

If what you are saying (I am going to have to assume, since you didn't specify) is that queer liberation is impossible within capitalist society, I'd beg to disagree. I am of the opinion that a unified, unbigoted working class is a prequisite for a successful proletarian revolution with a qenuine intention to build communism.

As long as the proletariat participates in oppression of parts of itself it cannot build jack shit, and definitely not an egalitarian society.
The same goes with religion and racism, I definitely think that both have to go before communism is a realistic possibility.

Marx has also said that capitalism will be obsolete when it ceases to be progressive, to which I agree.
And I still see progressive features in it. The capitalists will unify the proletariat to overthrow them!

Or like a certain Joseph V. Stalin once said: they'll sell us the rope we'll hang them with.

By importing labor to keep the unemployment rates high, they are creating a multicultural proletariat.
By promoting "antireligious" values (I'd say the nature of capitalism goes against religion, even though the ruling classes find it a useful tool for oppression and thus give it their support) it creates a more secular proletariat.

What about commercial queer subculture? When taking advantage of the queer movement and making money on it, the capitalists are making the positive aspects of queer culture more visible, and eventually accepted. People see with their own eyes that the negative stereotypes of queer people are false.

At this very moment, female bi- and homosexuality is already almost completely accepted. It is seen as, by what I dare claim to be the majority of young people of all classes, something hip and cool, something positive.

And the same phenomenon can already be discerned when it comes to males.

So, in conclusion, it will be capitalisms last progressive task to create a progressive proletariat, free of obsolete prejudices and traditions, ready to build communism.

When this process is complete, capitalism will be overthrown as an obsolete and entirely harmful system by a revolution.

A revolution is possible before this, but not a truly progressive, communist one.

What do you, Gent, and other fellow revolutionary leftists, think of my points?

[Revolution 9]

So are you saying that first we must liberate queers and then only we can liberate the proletarians?

I think that this concept is completely flawed.

All that I see in it is dangerous counter-revolutionary pacifism.

Communism isn't a special interests movement - we don't deal with the liberation of homosexuals, blacks, immigrants, or women - Communism is the liberation of all these people and the proles through one, massive revolution and social upheaval!

We could be fighting decades in Congress or Parliament for different people's rights, or we could start spreading revolutionary ideas right now and create a revolution that would liberate everyone once and for all.

[Sentinel]

What you fail to realise, "revolution 9", is that the overthrow of capitalism isn't the goal, but a method to reach the goal, that is communism.

What kind of communism do you think you can build if you don't believe in equality?


Communism isn't a special interests movement - we don't deal with the liberation of homosexuals, blacks, immigrants, or women - Communism is the liberation of all these people and the proles through one, massive revolution and social upheaval!

Communism isn't the revolution, it's what we achieve through the revolution, the new society. As long as the proletariat isn't free from prejudices against parts of itself, it cannot build an egalitarian society. Get it?

[NovelGentry]

I really wanted to avoid this, because as I said, any summary of it would sound like bigotry.


I reckon Gent by his statement meant that the queer cannot be liberated as long as the workers aren't liberated, that the oppression of sexual minorities is part of class oppression, and queer activists therefore are egoistic to demand emancipation.

While this may be true, philosophically there is a deeper question to be answered.


If what you are saying (I am going to have to assume, since you didn't specify) is that queer liberation is impossible within capitalist society

What I mean, in short, is that queer liberation is impossible so long as there are queers. Again, sounds like bigotry, but don't take the statement for face value.

The point is quite simple really. There are two different forms of emancipation that a queer person would tend to believe they have to reckon with... their emancipation as a queer, and their emancipation as a human. So long as we have to recognize queer emancipation as some sort of separate form of emancipation, we have obviously failed to recognize other forms of emancipation.

So what do queers demand? Political emancipation for queers? Well they have that. Civil emancipation? Social emancipation? Economic emancipation? Indeed they are egoists to demand such, just as the Jews are egoists to demand Jewish emancipation as is any such group for that matter egoist to demand emancipation.


As long as the proletariat participates in oppression of parts of itself it cannot build jack shit, and definitely not an egalitarian society.
The same goes with religion and racism, I definitely think that both have to go before communism is a realistic possibility.

But that depends on how you view queer oppression, or religious oppression, or racism, etc. If you see them as products of a class society, not causes of it, then it goes without saying you abolish such things by abolishing class society. If you see them as causes, then yes, you have to abolish those first. Marxists do not recognize such things as causes of class society, but as products of them.


We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions. We do not turn secular questions into theological ones. -- Karl Marx

[NovelGentry]

Might I just add **waits to be banned** (I think they've been looking for a reason).

[Sentinel]

I really wanted to avoid this, because as I said, any summary of it would sound like bigotry.

I see what you mean, but I assure you my motive was not to make you appear in a negative light, only sincere curiosity. :)


So what do queers demand?

I'm demanding an emancipation within the revolutionary leftist movement. While it may sound like something obvious, unfortunately it isn't a reality yet.

I argue that an enlightment of the proletariat is crucial before it seizes power, if it's to build something in the place of the current society.

And I think that capitalism will cause that enlightment to happen, both through it's flaws becoming more obvious, and trough it's very nature (see my points about commercial gay subculture).

Therefore, I'd say queer emancipation will happen due to material circumstances.


Marxists do not recognize such things as causes of class society, but as products of them.

It's a product of class society, but not the current one. ;)

Homophobia as we know it isn't a product of capitalism, it goes back to the days of feudalism, and has largely it's roots in various superstitions that have dominated human minds since then (not before).

These have been on a retreat in the industrialised countries for a while now, and so has the homophobia and sexism inherit in them.

I'm quite optimistic that we'll get rid of that crap soon, it's more about us progressives speeding up the process than triggering it if you see what I mean.

[NovelGentry]

I see what you mean, but I assure you my motive was not to make you appear in a negative light, only sincere curiosity.

Well what would one make of such a statement as, "queer liberation is impossible so long as there are queers" ??


I'm demanding an emancipation within the revolutionary leftist movement. While it may sound like something obvious, unfortunately it isn't a reality yet.

You're right, no broad scale revolutionary leftist movement is a reality yet. When such a movement exists, you will have no need to demand your emancipation within it.

And yes, I'm aware you didn't mean no revolutionary leftist movement exists yet, but I'm using your indirect reference to make a point. When a revolutionary leftist movement is actually a movement and not just short sweep, you won't need to demand such things.


I argue that an enlightment of the proletariat is crucial before it seizes power, if it's to build something in the place of the current society.

Ahhh yes, the famous "enlightenment of the proletariat."


And I think that capitalism will cause that enlightment to happen, both through it's flaws becoming more obvious, and trough it's very nature (see my points about commercial gay subculture).

Unfortunately selling gay subculture doesn't mean selling homosexuality. If indeed there is a definitive scope of things considered to be gay subculture, I think you will find it more likely that it merely loses the stigma of being gay subculture as opposed to homosexuality losing its stigma.


It's a product of class society, but not the current one.

I very much beg to differ.


it goes back to the days of feudalism

So do clothes, but they're still produced under capitalism.


These have been on a retreat in the industrialised countries for a while now, and so has the homophobia and sexism inherit in them.

Have they? Or have the merely changed form?


I'm quite optimistic that we'll get rid of that crap soon, it's more about us progressives speeding up the process than triggering it if you see what I mean.

Quite optimistic indeed.

The problem is of course, you're on a revolutionary leftist message board arguing about queer emancipation which on its own is all well and good. But as Marx points out in On the Jewish Question when you argue a question such as religious emancipation or queer emancipation, it necessarily becomes a theological argument, or in the sense of queer emancipation it becomes an argument of some sort of social/civil emancipation. It is in itself and argument about whether being queer is OK. Like an atheist argument is necessarily an argument of whether or not God exists; it is in an of itself a theological argument.

And I am of the impression that "we do not turn secular questions into theological ones."

It certainly isn't a singularly efficient analogy. That is, we do not believe homosexuality to be a product of class society, which is indeed why I'm glad you used the term queer, because queer implies a bit more than homosexuality. It is also the subculture which you so speak of and in that, the existence of it as a subculture, as an abstract form, as an alienated expression, is a product of class society.

If indeed what you seek to defeat through queer emancipation is the recognition/acceptance of it as an alienated expression, then you too seek to turn this wholely secular question into a "theological" one, you intend to make queer subculture OK and thereby assume you abolish such a division of humanity (into those queer and those not), but what you actually do is uphold it. By making it OK you do not emancipate the queer... you make them OK.

[piet11111]

well we can not liberate the homosexuals untill we liberate ourselves.
capitalism is deliberating fracturing us into groups that we must hate like poeple of different colour culture sexuality foreigners the poor etc etc.

its devide and conquer at its best (or worst to be precise)
this fracturing can only be ended with the overthrow of capitalism untill then we simply can not become a true united working class because that "mirror" will be broken before we repaired it.

but in this particular case i would gladly be wrong ofcourse but im afraid im not.

[xprol]

Originally posted by The Sentinel+Mar 11 2006, 03:33 PM--> (The Sentinel @ Mar 11 2006, 03:33 PM) In the thread "gay in iran" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47036&st=0&#entry1292032627), NovelGentry said following:


We're reading "On the Jewish Question" for a study group over at the RA forums... it's interesting to see some of Marx's points about religion have now seen full recognition in other social areas.

To not hijack the thread in question further, I have started a new one. While the topic is about dicrimination, it does in my opinion touch revolutionary theory in general, so I started it in the Theory forum.

If admins/mods think it belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it.

Since being queer is clearly not a religion, or a choice to abandon, I reckon Gent by his statement meant that the queer cannot be liberated as long as the workers aren't liberated, that the oppression of sexual minorities is part of class oppression, and queer activists therefore are egoistic to demand emancipation.


Marx; On The Jewish Question
The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation.

Bruno Bauer replies to them: No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule.

If what you are saying (I am going to have to assume, since you didn't specify) is that queer liberation is impossible within capitalist society, I'd beg to disagree. I am of the opinion that a unified, unbigoted working class is a prequisite for a successful proletarian revolution with a qenuine intention to build communism.

As long as the proletariat participates in oppression of parts of itself it cannot build jack shit, and definitely not an egalitarian society.
The same goes with religion and racism, I definitely think that both have to go before communism is a realistic possibility.

Marx has also said that capitalism will be obsolete when it ceases to be progressive, to which I agree.
And I still see progressive features in it. The capitalists will unify the proletariat to overthrow them!

Or like a certain Joseph V. Stalin once said: they'll sell us the rope we'll hang them with.

By importing labor to keep the unemployment rates high, they are creating a multicultural proletariat.
By promoting "antireligious" values (I'd say the nature of capitalism goes against religion, even though the ruling classes find it a useful tool for oppression and thus give it their support) it creates a more secular proletariat.

What about commercial queer subculture? When taking advantage of the queer movement and making money on it, the capitalists are making the positive aspects of queer culture more visible, and eventually accepted. People see with their own eyes that the negative stereotypes of queer people are false.

At this very moment, female bi- and homosexuality is already almost completely accepted. It is seen as, by what I dare claim to be the majority of young people of all classes, something hip and cool, something positive.

And the same phenomenon can already be discerned when it comes to males.

So, in conclusion, it will be capitalisms last progressive task to create a progressive proletariat, free of obsolete prejudices and traditions, ready to build communism.

When this process is complete, capitalism will be overthrown as an obsolete and entirely harmful system by a revolution.

A revolution is possible before this, but not a truly progressive, communist one.

What do you, Gent, and other fellow revolutionary leftists, think of my points? [/b]
Sentinal,

"So, in conclusion, it will be capitalisms last progressive task to create a progressive proletariat, free of obsolete prejudices and traditions, ready to build communism."

"When this process is complete, capitalism will be overthrown as an obsolete and entirely harmful system by a revolution."

With such a "progressive proletariat" why would we want to overthrow capitalism? It would not be an "obsolete and entirely harmful system", would it?

[redstar2000]

The dispute in this thread is not altogether clear to me.

It would seem to be self-evident that a revolutionary proletariat will have mostly dispensed with sexism, racism, homophobia, patriotism, religion, etc.

Partly, no doubt, as a consequence of the "natural decay" of capitalism itself.

But as well the consequence of concerted attack by those people among the earliest committed to proletarian revolution in the first place.

I think it's wrong to assume that "bad ideas" will just "go away" all by themselves...though, if you stand back far enough and take a long enough view, it can "look that way".

What ever happened to the idea that we should express deference to our feudal Lord? :lol:

Among other things, our ancestors removed the heads of a significant number of feudal lords.

I should not be surprised to see in the final decades of "old" capitalism that particularly infamous racists, sexists, homophobes, patriots, and god-racketeers have their stature similarly reduced...something even more likely to happen during an actual revolutionary period.

While those who attempt, for whatever motives, to salvage some "progressive" form of those reactionary ideologies are apt to receive "rough treatment" (at least verbally) at the hands of more thorough-going revolutionaries.

As to political movements based on "identity", I don't see that they do any significant harm at this time...and may even serve to break-down some of the assumptions inherent in the old reactionary ideologies. It's true that some of those movements (or parts of them) can be overtly reactionary.

But we shouldn't have any problem recognizing that and dealing with it whenever it happens.

"Gay Pride" is certainly not a revolutionary critique of capitalist society; but it's not some "terrible thing" that's "holding back the unity of the working class" either.

I don't see what the "fuss" is over.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

It may be vital for the left to defend the rights of minorities and to champion the cause of the oppressed sections of the proletariat in a time of revolution. For example, in 1917, when the revolution was picking up, counterrevolutionaries attempted to lead the revolution astray by playing to baser elements in the working class and stir up pogroms against Jews. It was communists who led the way in fighting against antisemetism.

[Dean]

Homosexuality is not necessarily a psychological disfiguration, though I Think that much of it is. Homosexuals, as long as they work toward the same interest of realizing all man's full capacity, can be active in a productive revolution just as far as anyone can, including the religious. The new social order will lead to new things for these religious and gays in many cases, however.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
Homosexuality is not necessarily a psychological disfiguration, though I think that much of it is.

Time for you to purchase a new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The 4th Edition has been out for some time now and homosexuality has been "dropped from the list" for quite a while.

If you're are going to speak about "psychological disfiguration", you'd be well advised to keep up on the most recent definitions.


Homosexuals, as long as they work toward the same interest of realizing all man's full capacity, can be active in a productive revolution just as far as anyone can, including the religious.

No, the "religious" cannot "work towards the same interest of realizing all man's full capacity"...as they are opposed to human reason as a matter of principle. The "Commands of God" have priority.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dean]

Time for you to purchase a new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The 4th Edition has been out for some time now and homosexuality has been "dropped from the list" for quite a while. If you're are going to speak about "psychological disfiguration", you'd be well advised to keep up on the most recent definitions.

"Psychological disfiguration" implies no connection to institutional psychology. Read Some Fromm, a great Marxist Psychoanalyst. Besides, homosexuality in general is ruled out of any realistic description as a mental disorder if one thinks that not all of it is psychologically unhealthy, a view I expressed previously in the thread.

Many religions, especially Judaeo-Christian ones, have had times at which they were compellingly communistic. Moses' Exodus and the entire traditional Christianity are exemplary of this in the Judaeo faiths, and Buddhist's comparable denial of worldly desires shows a third example of communism in religious tradition. I even have a book which is titled "The Socialist tradition: from Moses to Lenin," though I've not yet read it.

Institutional religion, as it tends to be tacked on to a state, is naturally a malignant force, but I have seen that this doesn't make up for the power of the individual idealist, as my best friend's entire family thinks like secular humanists but are very religious. Religion is, of course, a psychological problem (see if you can find that in your dictionary) but is by no means a necessarily malignant force in the cause of revolution itself. Indeed, Jesus' revolution was one of the earliest of the communal, and he was certainly a champion of the working class.

[Dean]

I'd also like to point out that the "Commands of God" are not in any way inherantly communist or capitalist in a man's way of thought; indeed, they are subject to each religious person's interpretation - in fact, some even believe that god is everything - basically saying that they have no external god but the world itself!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
Besides, homosexuality in general is ruled out of any realistic description as a mental disorder if one thinks that not all of it is psychologically unhealthy, a view I expressed previously in the thread.

What is "psychologically unhealthy" about any aspect of homosexuality?


Many religions, especially Judaeo-Christian ones, have had times at which they were compellingly communistic.

Total nonsense...but if you really want to argue it, the place for it is the Religion Sub-forum.

Prepare yourself for the worst...as godsucking is held in very low esteem on this board.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Sentinel]

I'm at work, using a shared computer, so I'll answer to Gent and others when I get the opportunity.

While Gent seems to largely see my point but disagree, Xprol hasn't got it at all so I'll answer him first. Mayhaps that will shed some light to what my point with this thread is, even for others.


With such a "progressive proletariat" why would we want to overthrow capitalism?

Because it's oppressing us and keeping us in wage-slavery, and sucks, maybe? :blink:

The more progressive the proletariat, the better it understands this condition.


It would not be an "obsolete and entirely harmful system", would it?

Yes, after completing it's final progressive task, it most certainly will be. :rolleyes:

While I'm aware that a revolutionary war is possible and can be won by a partly deluded and reactionary proletariat, communism cannot be built by one.

And that's the objective of the revolution, right?

It would clearly be in our interest to minimise the transition period between the actual revolution and the point when this is possible, by being as enlightened and "ready" as possible before the revolution.

Everyone with some understanding of history knows that capitalism once was very progressive, compared to earlier systems, and obviously it will be progressive, in a constantly lessening degree, until it stops.

It has definitely almost ceased to be progressive at this point, but perhaps there still is "something" to it.

Not enough that I wouldn't owerthrow it in a second if I had the chance, but there are some minor details, so to say, it might complete before becoming 100% obsolete.

Basically, what I'm arguing here is that even the commercial, capitalist, aspects of queer subculture are performing a progressive task.

And I'm not making this up, there is evidence for this visible for those with a will to look.

The oppression of queer people has definitely decreased in some of the most developed countries, due to the named phenomenon, secularisation and other aspects of modern society, mentioned before in this thread. :)

[Sentinel]

Ok, the crap computer is vacant again, so I'll try to type in some more.

Gent:


Originally posted by NovelGentry


It's a product of class society, but not the current one.


I very much beg to differ.




it goes back to the days of feudalism


So do clothes, but they're still produced under capitalism.

But before the medieval times and the great superstitions (Judaism, Christendom, Islam) homosexuality was largely accepted, and since capitalism modernised the society and brought secularisation homophobia has clearly reduced to some degree. I don't see why this process would abrubtly stop.




These have been on a retreat in the industrialised countries for a while now, and so has the homophobia and sexism inherit in them.


Have they? Or have the merely changed form?



I'm quite optimistic that we'll get rid of that crap soon, it's more about us progressives speeding up the process than triggering it if you see what I mean.


Quite optimistic indeed.


You are american, aren't you?

The US is still very much infested by superstition, and this development might not be as visible for you as it is to me.

I live in Sweden and would dare to claim that on this front we are ahead of not only the US, but maybe most countries.

The Gay Pride is a popular event with large media coverage, all the major political parties (any of which I don't endorse in any way, naturally) except the quite small Christian Democrat Party embrace it and many of their (straight) leaders annually participate in the festival, or send their greetings.

Public homophobic comments by the "famous" and the political elite of Sweden are agressively confronted and condemned by even the bourgeios press, and often mean a carreer suicide.

Coming out to your family, friends or at work as queer isn't even closely as a big deal as it was for the generation previous to mine.

So, in conclusion, I'm sceptical to your point that the oppression of queers is simply a product of class society, with it's fate tied to it's.

As I see it, it has it's origins in the fear of the different and the fear of femininity, spawned by the reactionary minds of medieval superstitious bigots, and it was doomed at the moment when capitalism conquered feudalism.

The process has been slow but is now accelerating, as capitalism is completing it's work as a form of human governance and so goes towards it's own doom.

[Dean]

"What is "psychologically unhealthy" about any aspect of homosexuality?

It may be, and often is, a symptom of a deeper problem with how one has chosen to live as opposed to their inherant faculties, drives and stimulations. MArx postulated this, and Freud to, to some degree or another, and both referred to the banishment of homosexual tendancies by the and stagnation of such drives... scientific data about non-human primates today seems to imply otherwise and hence I feel that it is both a result of psychological problems on occassion - often sadistic or masochistic personality conditions, and sometimes as a scientific implication.


Total nonsense...but if you really want to argue it, the place for it is the Religion Sub-forum.

Prepare yourself for the worst...as godsucking is held in very low esteem on this board.

I don't like god. I think religion is inherantly destructive of certain faculties, but also that it's definition goes beyond that of spirituality and denial of truth - I may start a thread about this, but I think one-sidedness on either issue shows a very self-destructive tendancy; you want to ignore that there are times, for instance, where the actuation of certain activities that should (probably) be legalized can be malignant. A lot of things act as drugs, to dull and stiffen the human mind against important, outward stimuli that would act to purify, lift up and enrich the human spirirt - not all of these things should be taken from us, but they should also not be encouraged. Again, homosexuiality is up in the air and as such it is better to leave freedom to what can be a mostly self - destructive tendancy, while other times the actuation of one's true self. Only by making us free to choose may we do what is good for ourselves.

Even anti-abortion ideals have realistic fodder, though few liberals would admit it. I mean that things wih sentient emotion, i.e. cows and the like, may be considered by the thinker to be deserving of life - as I do - and that hence abortion, if the fetus is thinking and feeling, is a wrong to the fetus. I expect otherwise, however, though either side is hard to prove.

In the vein of your comment, "...the economic laws of the capitalist system compel capitalists to behave the way they do" I submit that the same can relate to discrimination of many types, especially sexuality

[NovelGentry]

But before the medieval times and the great superstitions (Judaism, Christendom, Islam) homosexuality was largely accepted, and since capitalism modernised the society and brought secularisation homophobia has clearly reduced to some degree. I don't see why this process would abrubtly stop.

But this is exactly the point.

Let's address this to some degree first by noting I never said the stigma of homosexuality is evident in all class society. Certainly that is easily shown with your point that it was acceptable in some ancient cultures, if not openly, then at least as a private matter.

The question is of course, whether or not that stigma is a product of modern class society as well. While I agree it did not originate with capitalism, again, easily shown as the stigma was far worse in class societies that predate capitalism, that doesn't mean it is not a product of capitalism too.

What is more interesting is that you note, "since capitalism modernised the society and brought secularisation, homophobia has clearly reduced to some degree." Has it? Or has it just changed the argument?

Do you claim it to be a secular argument? To me they are still very superstitious.

Let's look at how capitalism has secularized the argument by examining modern day capitalist homophobic arguments:

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm

Where these arguments even come close to falling under the veil of secularism they quickly reak of class issues. They become economic arguments, arguments about social security, healthcare, and the economic family!

Most of us here can perceive what is really being said by such people. As much as such debate comes under the veil of secularism, we know exactly where it is actually coming from. They are not really secular, that is, they are not really interested in arguing about the economic aspects, to do so would be to talk in completely secular terms. And to do so would mean they would have to ignore homosexuality. Those issues are addressed outside of homosexuality. They are not really homosexual issues, they are economic issues. Leftists should know this... and many of us do.

But then you come here and take what would be a truly secular argument and turn it back into a "theological one." You turn it back into a question of whether homosexuality is acceptable or not. Sure you've changed the terms of the argument, the grounds on which its argued, but you haven't actually changed the substance of the argument. It is still an argument about the validity of homosexual relationships.

There is nothing secular about that argument. The question of the validity of homosexual relationships will never be a secular argument, because the question of the validity of homosexuality has never been a secular question... nor can it be. In order for it to be a secular question it must become a completely economic question... in doing so it is no longer a homosexual issue but strictly an economic issue.

But just as they refuse to make it a secular issue, so do you, for no other reason that you too wish to argue the validity of homosexuality... if you tried to actually make things secular it would lose its homosexual character altogether. You would lose your queer pride... you'd lose your queer character altogether... it would no longer be a queer argument... queer would no longer exist.

They refuse to make it a truly secular argument, and for them I can understand why. For you, I cannot.


You are american, aren't you?

The US is still very much infested by superstition, and this development might not be as visible for you as it is to me.

I live in Sweden and would dare to claim that on this front we are ahead of not only the US, but maybe most countries.

Well that does change some things, but at the same time, it doesn't. Perhaps they make more seemingly secular arguments there, but as I pointed out in that previous response, if it was truly secular, it would lose that character altogether. So ask yourself why it hasn't.


So, in conclusion, I'm sceptical to your point that the oppression of queers is simply a product of class society, with it's fate tied to it's.

But you're not emancipated yet. Not as a queer and not as a worker. If you had queer emancipation, coming out wouldn't be a deal at all, big deal or small deal... you wouldn't even have to "come out." But still, queer emancipation is not emancipation, and why you believe you will be able to have queer emancipation before other forms of emancipation is confusing to me.

For example, how do you expect to have queer social emancipation without having social emancipation? How did the Jew expect to have Jewish political emancipation before political emancipation? How does the female expect to have female economic emancipation without having economic emancipation? How does any single one of them demand it without considering themselves an egoist?

Have you heard the femninists who demand for female economic equality? No one has economic equality!

Do you see now the argument?


it was doomed at the moment when capitalism conquered feudalism.

It was doomed from the start, that doesn't mean we can attribute its destruction to any single epoch of human history. If you want to say that capitalism kills homophobia, well it is certainly taking its sweet time.

On the other hand, I fail to see why it would still exist unless some aspects of our society continued to uphold it. Superstition does not come into existence and perpetuate itself all on its own... to say so would be utterly superstitious.

[NovelGentry]

It may be, and often is, a symptom of a deeper problem with how one has chosen to live as opposed to their inherant faculties, drives and stimulations.

A perfectly good example of what you consider to be a secular argument. Give me a break!

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:24 AM

It may be, and often is, a symptom of a deeper problem with how one has chosen to live as opposed to their inherant faculties, drives and stimulations.

A perfectly good example of what you consider to be a secular argument. Give me a break!
We might as well shrug off the very question of society itself, to agree with this sentiment. There is benign faith, which is found in science - even agreeing with Karl Popper's reasoning for fact/theory logic would find itself with problems of faith, however rigid and unforgivign they are. Secularism is not clearly defined enough to be considered, anyways. Is it the denial of nature, in which case I see ample of evidence to support both fields my feet are in on the homosexuality issue, is the denial of this natural dichotomoy a character of a SECULAR thinker? No, I think that to you that is little more than a term to label your enemies when their thinking gets deeper than you wish to argue your point.

[NovelGentry]

We might as well shrug off the very question of society itself, to agree with this sentiment. There is benign faith, which is found in science - even agreeing with Karl Popper's reasoning for fact/theory logic would find itself with problems of faith, however rigid and unforgivign they are. Secularism is not clearly defined enough to be considered, anyways. Is it the denial of nature, in which case I see ample of evidence to support both fields my feet are in on the homosexuality issue, is the denial of this natural dichotomoy a character of a SECULAR thinker? No, I think that to you that is little more than a term to label your enemies when their thinking gets deeper than you wish to argue your point.

To ask any of these quesitons or discuss these issues, one might first like to know where you stand. What is your reason for arguing about homosexuality as you do? Why must you find it "a symptom of a deeper problem with how one has chosen to live?" And most importantly, if you do find it to be the outcome of this, what do you intend to do about it? Does that mean homosexuality must be "fixed?"

[STI]

Ok. It's time for the psychology major to clean up some of the crap that's been spilled all over the floor.


For starters: homosexuality is anything but a psychological "disorder", "disfiguration", "malady", or any such thing. If you were to tell that to the majority of today's actual psychologists, they'd probably laugh in your face, kick you out of their office, and send you a bill for $50 to compensate for the time you wasted.

Not since the early 1970s has the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality to be anything of a "problem" in any sense of the word.


Originally posted by The Dean Machine
Read Some Fromm, a great Marxist Psychoanalyst.

Psychoanalysis has all but fallen into obscurity among contemporary psychologists, and for good reason.


It may be, and often is, a symptom of a deeper problem with how one has chosen to live as opposed to their inherant faculties, drives and stimulations

People don't have deep-rooted, unconscious "problems" when it comes to "inherent drives" (sexual desire and aggression, if you're down with Freud... which nobody who knows what they're doing is anymore).


MArx postulated this, and Freud to, to some degree or another, and both referred to the banishment of homosexual tendancies by the and stagnation of such drives..

Marx was not a psychologists, and, I'm gonna say it, neither was Freud.


scientific data about non-human primates today seems to imply otherwise and hence I feel that it is both a result of psychological problems on occassion - often sadistic or masochistic personality conditions, and sometimes as a scientific implication.

Care to produce these "data"? Give a source too, please.

[Dean]

Ok. It's time for the psychology major to clean up some of the crap that's been spilled all over the floor.
For starters: homosexuality is anything but a psychological "disorder", "disfiguration", "malady", or any such thing. If you were to tell that to the majority of today's actual psychologists, they'd probably laugh in your face, kick you out of their office, and send you a bill for $50 to compensate for the time you wasted.
Not since the early 1970s has the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality to be anything of a "problem" in any sense of the word.

You believe that institutional psychology, psychology generated by the nature of capitalism - unanalytical - is more reasonable than psychoanalysis? You vulgarly flaunt your "psychology major" but don't understand psychoanalysis beyond the ideas of Freud - did the creators of science have no knowledge?



People don't have deep-rooted, unconscious "problems" when it comes to "inherent drives" (sexual desire and aggression, if you're down with Freud... which nobody who knows what they're doing is anymore).

Psychoanlysis, when done to the true ameaning of the term, studies the marrxist theory that the environment creates much of what a man becomes.


Care to produce these "data"? Give a source too, please.

I don't remember the site. Try google.

Novel Gentry:


To ask any of these quesitons or discuss these issues, one might first like to know where you stand. What is your reason for arguing about homosexuality as you do? Why must you find it "a symptom of a deeper problem with how one has chosen to live?" And most importantly, if you do find it to be the outcome of this, what do you intend to do about it? Does that mean homosexuality must be "fixed?"

I note that it is a symptom, but not necessarily one that needs to be taken as proof - hence the gay non-human primate reference. It doesn't need to be fixed - in fact it is a boon in that it often creates a smaller population on its current level. It may be a lifelong thing for people who are gay not by genetic inclination but by society, but that would not harm the patient. If, for instance, one werre gay and masochistic, as is a very common trend, and they dulled their passive behavior I would see that as basically a complete success - not even a sacar, as their is certainly no moral problem with homsexuality.

I wanted to discuss it because some here seem to feel strongly about the issue, and I wanted to share my ideas. I didn't expect such an attacking usage of language from leftists, but I hope that people will be more civil and think their words through more.


Psychoanalysis is of course comparable to marxism, and indeed compatible: both are analytical in nature!

[STI]

You believe that institutional psychology, psychology generated by the nature of capitalism - unanalytical - is more reasonable than psychoanalysis?

Yeah, it is. Want to know why?

Empirical verification.

Just because "it was created in capitalism" doesn't make it automatically bad on principle. The ruling class wouldn't want research to be done unless they could get some use out of it, and thus they would want psychological research to be accurate. This isn't to say that it always is - there's still only one class paying the bills - but far moreso than psychoanalisis.


You vulgarly flaunt your "psychology major" but don't understand psychoanalysis beyond the ideas of Freud - did the creators of science have no knowledge?

Yes, the people who created science had no knowledge. That's what I'm saying :rolleyes:


Psychoanlysis, when done to the true ameaning of the term, studies the marrxist theory that the environment creates much of what a man becomes.


...And relies on all kinds of un-scientific, un-marxist assumptions... leading to all kinds of crazy conclusions ("homosexuality is a psychological disorder")


I don't remember the site. Try google.


:lol:

Fancy that.

I'm not going on some wild goose chase for some fabled "data" (which, i'm sure, *really is there* :rolleyes: ) about how homosexuality is the result of sadistic and masochistic personality traits.

Waste of my time.