Lenin on Women and Homosexuals

[Cheung Mo]

Lenin had some pretty reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals though.

[TC]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 31, 2006 09:42 pm
Lenin had some pretty reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals though.
No he didn't, you're full of shit, the soviet union while Lenin was in government was the first state to have equality before the law for women and gay people. Anarchist founder Proudhon on the other hand thought women should stay out of politics!

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 04:10 pm
No he didn't, you're full of shit, the soviet union while Lenin was in government was the first state to have equality before the law for women and gay people. Anarchist founder Proudhon on the other hand thought women should stay out of politics!
Blah blah blah he wasn't our founder, we don't have one, we don't name ourselves after dead men, yada yada yada.

I've said it so many times I feel like an idiot repeating it.

I remember RS2K's website had some interesting stuff about Lenin's views on sexuality for sure. He linked to a few works by Lenin that we reactionary.

On to the issue at hand: Religion is bullshit. I'm fairly confident that in the same topic, KNoS, Love Underground or TAT (don't remember which) pointed out that they work with religious people.

I work with liberals (when I have to). I work with bourgeois socialists. I work with Marxists. I hope that they realize that they're mistaken, but they won't do that if I never challenge their views. Same with religious people. I think if we don't challenge reaction, it's not going to just disappear when some mythical "Revolution" occurs. That's not the way the world works.

If we don't continually challenge superstition and reaction, we risk letting it gain power. And then we're just slimy populist demagogues.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by TragicClown+October 31, 2006 10:10 pm--> (TragicClown @ October 31, 2006 10:10 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 31, 2006 09:42 pm
Lenin had some pretty reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals though.
No he didn't, you're full of shit, the soviet union while Lenin was in government was the first state to have equality before the law for women and gay people. Anarchist founder Proudhon on the other hand thought women should stay out of politics! [/b]
Yup! You took the words right out of my mouth - The Soviet Union became the first state in the world to legalize homosexuality and abortion. I'd really like to see where Lenin holds "reactionary" views of women and homosexuals - he is certainly much less "reactionary" than many other revolutionaries of his time period who maintained that women should be held as second class citizens and even revolutionaries that came well after him, like Fidel and Che Guevara who had homophobic positions for most of their lives.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by TragicClown+October 31, 2006 10:10 pm--> (TragicClown @ October 31, 2006 10:10 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 31, 2006 09:42 pm
Lenin had some pretty reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals though.
No he didn't, you're full of shit, the soviet union while Lenin was in government was the first state to have equality before the law for women and gay people. Anarchist founder Proudhon on the other hand thought women should stay out of politics! [/b]
Yeah Russia was the first state in europe to legalize abortion.

[scawenb]

In the first Government they had the world's first woman minister in Alexandra Kollontai and the first modern gay one in Georgi Cicherin.

[chimx]

The initiative for revocation of antihomosexual legislation, following the Revolution of February 1917, had come, not from the Bolsheviks but from the Cadets (Constitutional democrats) and the anarchists (Karlinsky, 1989). Nevertheless, once the old criminal code had been repealed after the October Revolution, the antihomosexual article also ceased to be valid. The Russian Federation criminal codes for 1922 and 1926 did not mention homosexuality, although the corresponding laws remained in force in places where homosexuality was most prevalent - in the Islamic republics of Azerbaijan, Turkmenia, and Uzbekistan, as well as in Christian Georgia.

Soviet medical and legal experts were very proud of the progressive nature of their legislation, lnl930, the medical expert Sereisky (1930) wrote in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "Soviet legislation does not recognize so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest" P. 593).

The most important collection of documents and texts on Soviet homosexuality is Kozlovsky (1986).

As Engelstein (1995) justly mentions, the formal decriminalization of sodomy did not mean that such conduct was invulnerable to prosecution. The absence of formal statutes against anal intercourse or lesbianism did not stop the prosecution of homosexual behavior as a form of disorderly conduct. After the 1922 Penal Code was published there were in that same year at least two known trials for homosexual practices. The eminent psychiatrist Vladimir Bekhterev testified that "public demonstration of such impulses ... is socially harmful and cannot be permitted" (Engelstein, 1995, p. 167). The official stance of Soviet medicine and law in the 1920s, as reflected by Sereisky's encyclopedia article, was that homosexuality was a disease that was difficult, perhaps even impossible, to cure. So "while recognizing the incorrectness of homosexual development ... our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures with all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective" (Sereisky, 1930, p. 593).

linky (http://www.gay.ru/english/history/kon/soviet.htm)

so while i agree that russia's initial stance on homosexuality was certainly ahead of other western powers, it was a far cry from being a gay man's utopia.

of course, once stalin took power, homosexual persecutions turned it into a gay man's hell:


By the decree of December 17, 1933, and by the law of March 7, 1934, muzhelozhstvo once again became a criminal offense. The exact reasons for this abrupt change are still unknown, but it was clearly part of the "sexual Termidor" and of a general repressive trend. Criminalizing clauses were inserted into the codes of all the Soviet republics. According to Article 121 of the Russian Federation criminal code, muzhelozhstvo was punishable by deprivation of freedom of up to 5 years and, by Article 121.2, in cases of physical force or threat thereof, or exploitation of the victim's dependent status or involvement of a minor, a term of up to 8 years.

In January 1936, Nikolai Krylenko, People's Commissar for Justice, announced that homosexuality was a product of the decadence of the exploiting classes who knew no better, but that in a democratic society founded on healthy principles there was no place for such people (Kozlovsky, 1986). Homosexuality was thus tied to counterrevolution. Later, Soviet medical authorities and lawyers described homosexuality as a manifestation of "moral decadence of the bourgeoisie."

"The precise number of persons prosecuted under Article 121 is unknown (the first official information was released only in 1988), but it is believed to be about 1000 a year."

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 06:30 pm
so while i agree that russia's initial stance on homosexuality was certainly ahead of other western powers, it was a far cry from being a gay man's utopia.

of course, once stalin took power, homosexual persecutions turned it into a gay man's hell.
Hi

You have to remember that initially the Bolshevists worked from what they knew, and many people up till 1970's regarded homosexuality as an illness to be cured. So while yes they were ahead of all the other governments, they were still limited by the knowledge of their time. Had they known what we know today there is no doubt in my mind they would have adjusted their policies to fit the knowledge.

[chimx]

I'm not disagreeing with that, just the hero worship of bolshevik leaders who presumably did no wrong. Specifically, that only anarchists like Proudhon were subject to historial prejudices, and communists like Lenin were morally superior. This is an absurdity.

Also, I would agree with you up until the mid-1930s, when the soviet government back-tracked and took an extremely reactionary stance--making other western powers' stances on homosexuality seem down right progressive in comparison!

it took cuba until the 1990s to legalize homosexuality, and same-sex marriage still isn't recognized by the constitution. in Russia, it was Yeltsin that eventually repealed the 121 code mentioned above... NOT the soviet government.

[Leo]

Lenin definately did not have a reactionary approach on women, however he did have some pretty shocking ideas about sexual morality.

This link is worth taking a look:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/192...nin/zetkin1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm)

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Whehter or not this is true, the fact remains that Lenin was authoriatarian, oppressed his people and was essentially a state capitalist.

In this sense he oppressed ALL his people.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:37 am
Whehter or not this is true, the fact remains that Lenin was authoriatarian, oppressed his people and was essentially a state capitalist.

In this sense he oppressed ALL his people.
I suggest you look up the definition of the word "fact".

[Severian]

Originally posted by chimx+November 01, 2006 12:30 pm--> (chimx @ November 01, 2006 12:30 pm)so while i agree that russia's initial stance on homosexuality was certainly ahead of other western powers, it was a far cry from being a gay man's utopia.[/b]
I'm not sure who promised you any kind of utopia; but I'd try to get my money back if I was you.

The Bolsheviks' governments policies were a huge step forward compared to tsarist or Provisional Government Russia, and compared to anywhere at the time.


Leo
he did have some pretty shocking ideas about sexual morality.

This link is worth taking a look:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/192...nin/zetkin1.htm

I don't know what's so shocking about that, but lemme point out it's a secondhand account.

A couple letters directly by Lenin on that the subject of sexuality:
one (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jan/17.htm) two (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jan/24.htm)

If you want to discuss the subject, that might make a better basis.

More importantly, his views on women's rights:
from 1921, so not campaign promises so to speak (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm)
No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children.

This is only the first step in the liberation of woman. But none of the bourgeois republics, including the most democratic, has dared to take oven this first step. The reason is awe of “sacrosanct private property.

The second and most important step is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories. This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from “household bondage” through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialised domestic services.

This transition is a difficult one, because it involves the remoulding of the most deep-rooted, inveterate, hidebound and rigid “order” (indecency and barbarity would be nearer the truth). But the transition has been started, the thing has been set in motion, we have taken the new path.

And so on this international working women’s day countless meetings of working women in all countries of the world will send greetings to Soviet Russia, which has been the first to tackle this unparalleled and incredibly hard but great task, a task that is universally great and truly liberatory.

From 1920 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/feb/21.htm)
Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.

It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.

Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.

Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.

But that is not enough.

It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.

We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.

By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.

Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.

Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!

The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 01, 2006 07:42 am
Lenin had some pretty reactionary views regarding women and homosexuals though.
*Runs off and becomes an anarchist*

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 02:37 am
Whehter or not this is true, the fact remains that Lenin was authoriatarian, oppressed his people and was essentially a state capitalist.

In this sense he oppressed ALL his people.
His people? What? Did lenin own the russian working class somehow?

Authoritarian towards the ruling class? Certianly, I would expect no less from a communist revolutionary. A state capitalist? How exactly? Just because you are an obsessive rampant anti-bolshevik doesn't mean you can spill out such nonscense, why don't you tell me what Lenin should have done then? I suppose the bolsheviks shouldn't have used violence either and given up the oppertunity for a workers revolution?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Severian+November 02, 2006 08:20 am--> (Severian @ November 02, 2006 08:20 am)
[email protected] 01, 2006 12:30 pm
so while i agree that russia's initial stance on homosexuality was certainly ahead of other western powers, it was a far cry from being a gay man's utopia.
I'm not sure who promised you any kind of utopia; but I'd try to get my money back if I was you. [/b]
Refer to TC's comments above. She was trying to paint quite the pretty picture of russia, when in reality bolsheviks did prosecute homosexuals for their sexual orientation, and by 1934, had regressed into one of the worst anti-homosexual states.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

it took cuba until the 1990s to legalize homosexuality, and same-sex marriage still isn't recognized by the constitution.

That's because no one has pushed for it, cause it's relatively meaningless . Everyone is equal under the law, marriage carries no special privilege, unlike the capitalist states.

Cuba is voting on a measure in a few months that would give free sex change operations to anyone who wanted one. Pretty backwards huh?

[chimx]

so are you denying the persecutions of homosexuals in cuba?

[scawenb]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:51 pm
so are you denying the persecutions of homosexuals in cuba?
Of course it oppressed homosexuals - from the outset when the large number of male prostitutes and others gay people servicing the off-shore playboy island which was Batista's Cuba, largely sided with the regime and against the revolution.

There was also the phenomenial force of machisomo which dominated Latin America which oppresses all non-overtly hetrosexual men. The Cuban regime has slowly tried to reverse this culture and has certainly gone further than comparative countires as well as large swathes of the USA. This attack on machismo and challenging of homophobia has increased massively in the last decade or so.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by scawenb

Of course it oppressed homosexuals - from the outset when the large number of male prostitutes and others gay people servicing the off-shore playboy island which was Batista's Cuba, largely sided with the regime and against the revolution.

That is not a justification to oppress gay people, but rather counter-revolutionares generally.

[scawenb]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 03, 2006 12:47 pm
That is not a justification to oppress gay people, but rather counter-revolutionares generally.
I did not mean it as a justification at all. It was just an explaination of one of the reason why it happened.

[Severian]

Originally posted by scawenb+November 03, 2006 06:42 am--> (scawenb @ November 03, 2006 06:42 am)
[email protected] 02, 2006 11:51 pm
so are you denying the persecutions of homosexuals in cuba?
Of course it oppressed homosexuals - from the outset when the large number of male prostitutes and others gay people servicing the off-shore playboy island which was Batista's Cuba, largely sided with the regime and against the revolution. [/b]
I'm sorry, this is clearly wrong. The most anti-gay period in Cuban policy was not the period when they were clearing out the mafia and the Batistianos. It was 1964, with the fortunately short-lived UMAP camps.

While traditional machismo plays a role as you say, the other major factor was Soviet (that is Stalinist, or if you like post-Stalinist) ideological influence, which had other negative effects as well.

'Course that's no longer a factor, and Cuban policy is much improved. It's very possibly the best gay rights policy in Latin America.

Some details on this (http://www.blythe.org/bnf.html)
Lots more details (http://www.blythe.org/arenas.html)

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 02:43 pm
Hi

You have to remember that initially the Bolshevists worked from what they knew, and many people up till 1970's regarded homosexuality as an illness to be cured. So while yes they were ahead of all the other governments, they were still limited by the knowledge of their time. Had they known what we know today there is no doubt in my mind they would have adjusted their policies to fit the knowledge.
Hi,

Way back before the russian revolution, I do remember homosexuality being accepted as the "norm," and it being seen as common and often times average to some extent, in both rome and ancient greece, why did the bolsheviks not take that lead and have a pro-homosexuality stance instead of degrading it to a mental illness?

Furthermore how does "the times," validate or make amends for their anti-homosexual stance?

[chimx]

Czar Nicholas II's uncle was unapologetically gay.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:25 pm
Czar Nicholas II's uncle was unapologetically gay.
Long live the Czar!