French Communist Party condemns russian communists

[Red October]

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/81793-0/

thoughts on this? i think the actions of the CPRF are pretty despicable, especially their collaborations with nazis.

[Vargha Poralli]

Genuine Marxism is driven out from Russia as early as 1937.

The CPRF is just the animated corpse of CPSU.We cannot expect any progressive elements in it and any progress from it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Their actions are really not that unique. In many places communist parties are homophobic. It's more of a cultural thing, Russia is pretty socially conservative to my knowledge, so the party, sadly, adapts.

[A.J.]

This is old news.

But, meh, both the French CP and the KPRF are highly revisionist.

How gives a shit about this.

[razboz]

Ive said this elsewhere (Nepali gays thread im looking at you) but thats one of the characteristic traits of traditonalist authoritarian Communist parties world wide, that they seem to be ready to compromise with any ideas except those that actually want to help people. Many Russian Communist partys apear to have more in common with the neo-nazis than anything even remotely marxist in appearance.

[RNK]

Not that I agree with the Russians in the least bit, but does everything have to be so friggen dramatic? Every other day I hear some story or another about one Communist group declaring jihad against another for what sometimes amounts to a minor difference in policy or behaviour. Capitalism thrives because its contradictory aspects are almost always willing and able to maintain some sort of alliance with each other. The Communist movement, however, is fractured and in disarray, with everyone jumping on everyone else's back because of some really trivial matter.

Yeah, we all have our opinions about what's right, and about what's really right, but I would've rather seen the French party attempt to communicate their ill feelings with the Russians, rather than simply cut off all relations.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:21 pm
Not that I agree with the Russians in the least bit, but does everything have to be so friggen dramatic? Every other day I hear some story or another about one Communist group declaring jihad against another for what sometimes amounts to a minor difference in policy or behaviour. Capitalism thrives because its contradictory aspects are almost always willing and able to maintain some sort of alliance with each other. The Communist movement, however, is fractured and in disarray, with everyone jumping on everyone else's back because of some really trivial matter.

Yeah, we all have our opinions about what's right, and about what's really right, but I would've rather seen the French party attempt to communicate their ill feelings with the Russians, rather than simply cut off all relations.
I think there is a time for commmunication and a time for not bloody talking to the bastards because they are no better than the Nazi or Nazbol or fascist scum they try to emulate.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:45 pm

I think there is a time for commmunication and a time for not bloody talking to the bastards because they are no better than the Nazi or Nazbol or fascist scum they try to emulate.
WTF? Just beceause they oppose gays?
Nobody can ignore cultural aspects of a society, not even communists.
Of course if you would analyze it from a Marxist perspective you would come to the realization that this is a well known thing, which you also see in the anarchist movement. Something you probably dont do.

[Keyser]

WTF? Just beceause they oppose gays?

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) don't just oppose gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. The CPRF also opposes immigrants and non-Russian minority groups within the Russia.

The CPRF, since their inception after the fall of the USSR, were never communists nor were they an organisation that supported the struggle for working class unity against the state. All the CPRF is about, is that it is made up of some elements of the old stalinist party apparatus that hate the fact that they no longer control the state they think they have a right to run, the CPRF in no way wants to see the state done away with and the workers running things themselves.


Nobody can ignore cultural aspects of a society, not even communists.

But there is a difference between understanding the cultural aspects of society and supporting them. Yes, Russia has a very large problem with nationalism, racism, xenephobia and homophobia. As revolutionaries we must learn about these hatreds yet under no circumstances can we ever support them, regardless of their place within 'traditional' Russian culture.


Of course if you would analyze it from a Marxist perspective you would come to the realization that this is a well known thing, which you also see in the anarchist movement.

Even though I'm an anarchist-communist myself, I would think that at some point in time there have been anarchist movements that did display elements of homophobia and other hatreds. But two wrongs do not make a right. Just becuase a group that calls itself 'Communist' in it's title (even if it is not communist, like the CPRF) is homophobic does not excuse anything.

Sadly the far-left and the anti-capitalist movement in Russia is very weak and in the other former countries of the USSR, virtually non-existant. What some people wrongly label the far-left, groups like the CPRF and other 'lets return to the USSR' groups, are anything but. The CPRF, with their Russian nationalism, sometimes anti-semitism and their complete lack of any class analysis or anti-capitalist programme, would have a regime very similar to that of current day China, a 'socialism with Russian characteristics'.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

What I don't understand is, many of these CPRF people were formerly members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The CPSU didn't exactly have such a xenophobic stance, did it?

[Zeruzo]

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) don't just oppose gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. The CPRF also opposes immigrants and non-Russian minority groups within the Russia.

Do you have a source for this information?
(Cause its the first time i ever heard THAT)



The CPRF, since their inception after the fall of the USSR, were never communists nor were they an organisation that supported the struggle for working class unity against the state. All the CPRF is about, is that it is made up of some elements of the old stalinist party apparatus that hate the fact that they no longer control the state they think they have a right to run, the CPRF in no way wants to see the state done away with and the workers running things themselves.

This is mere speculation. Except for the known fact that this is the largest communist party of Russia at the moment beceause of its affliation to the old CPSU.



But there is a difference between understanding the cultural aspects of society and supporting them. Yes, Russia has a very large problem with nationalism, racism, xenephobia and homophobia. As revolutionaries we must learn about these hatreds yet under no circumstances can we ever support them, regardless of their place within 'traditional' Russian culture.


I never said it was a good thing. But just doing away with them is bull-shit. The basis is class-struggle, which is what the CPRF supports and a reason to dont stop supporting them!



The CPSU didn't exactly have such a xenophobic stance, did it?

They did against gays. The exact reasons of this are unknown to me, you should ask that to someone else :).

[loveme4whoiam]

Every other day I hear some story or another about one Communist group declaring jihad against another for what sometimes amounts to a minor difference in policy or behaviour.
A so-called Communist group actually attacking a gay parade is a minor matter to you??


But there is a difference between understanding the cultural aspects of society and supporting them. Yes, Russia has a very large problem with nationalism, racism, xenephobia and homophobia. As revolutionaries we must learn about these hatreds yet under no circumstances can we ever support them, regardless of their place within 'traditional' Russian culture.
Precisely. There is a history of repressive cultural aspects all over the globe - the very point of being progressive is to oppose these aspects not support them!

[Zeruzo]

A so-called Communist group actually attacking a gay parade is a minor matter to you??


Yes, as in essence working-class emancipation is the most progressive thing you can support at this point of time. Making the CP of Russia proggresive. Of course you could argue that we as communists should be supporting that freedom, while other communists argue that homosexuality is a capitalist invention. In no way this issue should thus determine whether or not we support this group.



Precisely. There is a history of repressive cultural aspects all over the globe - the very point of being progressive is to oppose these aspects not support them!

Of course, but if the CP of Russia is pro-workers emancipation and of opinion that gay-rights are not progresive. Then i am not the first one who will oppose them.

[loveme4whoiam]

What?!

You are telling me that you would condone a group that, despite having the praiseworthy end-goal of a socialist Russia (I assume - I honestly don't give a flying fuck what this group's aims are) they apparently seek to achieve this end by attacking a repressed section of society?

Tell me, would you think it minor if they attacked black people, or a women's march, or any other repressed group?

Laying aside the reprehensible standpoint of your argument, you say that this action should not dictate whether or not this group is supported. I would say that an organisation should be judged by the methods they would use in order to achieve a progressive goal - how precisely does this attack benefit the class struggle?


other communists argue that homosexuality is a capitalist invention.
Attacking homosexuals because their sexual preference was invented by capitalism? Bullshit. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality was invented by capitalism is, frankly, a moron.


Of course, but if the CP of Russia is pro-workers emancipation and of opinion that gay-rights are not progresive.
Well I (and the majority of leftists I should think) do believe that gay rights is progressive, as do the French CP apparently. I'll not support any homophobic group, nor a racist or any other discriminatory group, despite having worker emancipation as their ultimate objective, and no organisation of that sort is ever progressive.

[Zeruzo]

You are telling me that you would condone a group that, despite having the praiseworthy end-goal of a socialist Russia (I assume - I honestly don't give a flying fuck what this group's aims are) they apparently seek to achieve this end by attacking a repressed section of society?

Do you hate Friedrich Engels for saying that Homosexuality is "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading"?
As you probably know Marx and Engels saw homosexuality as a capitalistic excess, from this point of view gay-rights would thus be un-proggresive. I am not stating that i agree with this point of view, but completely opposing an organization that does is well bull-shit.
Or maybe Lenin:
"It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories [...] springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. It is, mainly, a hobby of the intellectuals and of the sections nearest to them. There is no place for it in the party, in the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.”



Tell me, would you think it minor if they attacked black people, or a women's march, or any other repressed group?
Provide me with a socialist argument supporting racism?
Except for womyns rights of course, which traditional marxists oppose.



Laying aside the reprehensible standpoint of your argument, you say that this action should not dictate whether or not this group is supported. I would say that an organisation should be judged by the methods they would use in order to achieve a progressive goal - how precisely does this attack benefit the class struggle?

As i said, they see homosexuality as an excess of bourgeouis society, thus trying to destroy certain excesses of capitalism.



Attacking homosexuals because their sexual preference was invented by capitalism? Bullshit. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality was invented by capitalism is, frankly, a moron.

So, Marx and Engels were morrons?



Well I (and the majority of leftists I should think) do believe that gay rights is progressive, as do the French CP apparently.

Only the French CP (and i) have not stopped supporting them!

[razboz]

Do you hate Friedrich Engels for saying that Homosexuality is "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading"?

What you show is moral cowardice, hiding behind the "Great Marx" and his sidekick "the MIghty Engles" (or the other way round whatever). Using them as sheilds to spport what amounts to discriminatory behaviour is extremely apalling and something ifind absolutely intolerable. How could anyone accept that just because Marx and Englesa and any one else you ight care to bring up said that one thing was true it is? Especially when it shows a degree of societal devolopement on par with most fundamentalist christians...


So, Marx and Engels were morrons?

If they actually thought that capitalism caused homosexuality then yes i do think they were morons. Just because they may very well be some the greatest thinkers (at least one of them was) of the 19th century, this does not mean they could not make impossibly large mistakes. Marx for example thought that the West was ripe for proletarian revolution in his time. He was quite definitely wrong.

As to supporting groups because they were fighting for the worker class and for the advancement of the proletarians i have but one abbreviated party name to give you: NSDAP or as most people know them the Nazis.

[Zeruzo]

What you show is moral cowardice, hiding behind the "Great Marx" and his sidekick "the MIghty Engles" (or the other way round whatever). Using them as sheilds to spport what amounts to discriminatory behaviour is extremely apalling and something ifind absolutely intolerable. How could anyone accept that just because Marx and Englesa and any one else you ight care to bring up said that one thing was true it is? Especially when it shows a degree of societal devolopement on par with most fundamentalist christians...

Since it was in a discussion with someone calling himself a Marxist perhaps?
If he can tolerate it from Marx, he can tolerate it from the communist party of Russia. As i have stated before is that all it states is a different perception on gay-rights and whether or not they are progresive. No big issue, really...
If you want to break of with every organization that has such a thing you can break with basically every communist movement and probably also your precious Marcos. The Sandanistas are a great example of this.



If they actually thought that capitalism caused homosexuality then yes i do think they were morons. Just because they may very well be some the greatest thinkers (at least one of them was) of the 19th century, this does not mean they could not make impossibly large mistakes. Marx for example thought that the West was ripe for proletarian revolution in his time. He was quite definitely wrong.

Ahaah, but you can forgive them?
Then why cant you forgive the communists in Russia?



As to supporting groups because they were fighting for the worker class and for the advancement of the proletarians i have but one abbreviated party name to give you: NSDAP or as most people know them the Nazis.

Yes, a truly remarkable example <_<.
Ok, Nazi&#39;s are basically capitalists... Their quite as much socialist as an average social-democratic party in Western Europe, probably even worse (since none of these parties proposes to cut the minimum-wage in half).

[Red October]

Since it was in a discussion with someone calling himself a Marxist perhaps?
If he can tolerate it from Marx, he can tolerate it from the communist party of Russia. As i have stated before is that all it states is a different perception on gay-rights and whether or not they are progresive. No big issue, really...
If you want to break of with every organization that has such a thing you can break with basically every communist movement and probably also your precious Marcos. The Sandanistas are a great example of this.

im pretty sure marcos is a supporter of gay rights. and a while back someone said traditional marxists opposed women&#39;s rights. why is this and on what grounds do they base it?

[Zeruzo]

I am merely stating that there is probably an eqaully controversial topic that Marcos does not support. I&#39;ve seen examples of such in every communist movement, so no doubt Marcos has one too. If not, good for him.

I&#39;m searching for an example now on the womens-rights issue...

Ugh, ok... too much reading lol.
Ok, traditional Marxists generally think women should not be working but should be raising the children etc... My source is my memory since i&#39;m tired of reading :).
But anyway, that has not got much to do with this i guess....

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:43 pm
I am merely stating that there is probably an eqaully controversial topic that Marcos does not support.

If you want to break of with every organization that has such a thing you can break with basically every communist movement and probably also your precious Marcos.

Your random attack on Sup. Marcos is quite interesting actually, though i did of course ignore it off-hand at first as being part of some form of Leninist-Stalinist sectarian smear-campaign. See, the Zapatistas in Mexico are a great example of where an organisation has managed to completely break off from the old marxist-leninist style organisations and their withered beleifs(concerning issues such hierarchy, the vanguard and perhaps more relevantly women&#39;s and gay rights). YOu see the Zapatista&#39;s ideology was in great part moulded by its individual compnents and supporters around the world. Many of these saw the Zapatistas as being a new hope, something different than the old Red Guards of Europe in the form the myriad of Communist Partys. Despite allowing themselves to be shaped by their consittuent parts, the Zapatistas did manage to impose progressive views on women, and this despite being in one of the most male-centric parts of the world. Indeed before the Zaptistas women in Mexico were really seen as nothing more than glorified baby production and house cleanign units. However the Zaptistas really managed to bring this issue to the forefront of Mexican politcs and really do something to change the views of the average Mexican. im not saying they acheived hige amounts. What i am saying is that they did not allow themselves to be moulded by local customs concerning women and homosexuals in particular. This proves once again that the confused Leninist claim that it is necessary to be adaptable and to compromise certain vieews in order to gain the trust of the locals, while still partly valid, is not relvant anymore as it has been presented with an alternative, and a partly successfull one at that.

Incidentally im going to assume that when we referr to Marcos we actually referr to the EZLN, the military branch of the FZLN. It makes much easier, because i dont know the guy personally so i have n o clue what his private thoughts are. I do know what his public statements have said in the past though and these are usually on behalf of the EZLN or FZLN.

[Messiah]

Ok, traditional Marxists generally think women should not be working but should be raising the children etc... My source is my memory since i&#39;m tired of reading .

Umm, what? This is, well, just plain wrong. I don&#39;t know what exactly a "traditional" Marxist is but I whatever they are, they are very uneducated on the Marxist movement. Or you just made them up. Communists, anarchists and socialists have quite rightly, and proudly, been some of the most ardent supporters of women&#39;s rights and equality.

I am no Marxist myself, but this is just preposterous. I think you may confusing regional attitudes with political ideologies.

[ArmenianAnarchist16]

Considering that the self-described "Socialist Party" of France is actually a rather moderate organization which advocates a slight form of social democracy and compares in politics to the Labour Party and Democrats in the UK and US, I would likely assume that the definition and usage of the word "Socialism" carries much less meaningful and narrow conotations that here in the US, therefore a much broader segment of the population of France would self-describe as socialist purely on the basis of supporting some socialist policies such as national healthcare and the welfare state. If people here were polled on their support of such socialist policies, without the perjorative of the word "socialism" being used it would not surpriese me if a similar number of people answered in the affirmative.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:59 am

Ok, traditional Marxists generally think women should not be working but should be raising the children etc... My source is my memory since i&#39;m tired of reading .

Umm, what? This is, well, just plain wrong. I don&#39;t know what exactly a "traditional" Marxist is but I whatever they are, they are very uneducated on the Marxist movement. Or you just made them up. Communists, anarchists and socialists have quite rightly, and proudly, been some of the most ardent supporters of women&#39;s rights and equality.

I am no Marxist myself, but this is just preposterous. I think you may confusing regional attitudes with political ideologies.
I think he is referring to Marx himself and his contemporary followers. Also some of the really old guard still think that Homosexuality is wrong or sick as do many old guards everywhere.

[Zeruzo]

Your random attack on Sup. Marcos is quite interesting actually, though i did of course ignore it off-hand at first as being part of some form of Leninist-Stalinist sectarian smear-campaign.

Uhm, no i never attacked him. I stated that he was not perfect. If that is a smear-campaign then yes i am attacking Sup. Marcos.

He is probably not free from everything that is considered conservative. Which was my point, even though again i&#39;ll say it it could be argued that gay-rights are not proggresive,

The rest of your post is mostly a defence on how &#39;great&#39; the Zapatistas are and a standard attack on Leninist ideology. Something that has nothing (or at least not much) to do with the topic of conversation.



Umm, what? This is, well, just plain wrong. I don&#39;t know what exactly a "traditional" Marxist is but I whatever they are, they are very uneducated on the Marxist movement. Or you just made them up. Communists, anarchists and socialists have quite rightly, and proudly, been some of the most ardent supporters of women&#39;s rights and equality.

I am not saying they were against womyns rights. I am merely stating that they were of opinion that biologically speaking it is a womyns task to raise children.



I am no Marxist myself, but this is just preposterous. I think you may confusing regional attitudes with political ideologies.

Uhm, no.

[razboz]

The rest of your post is mostly a defence on how &#39;great&#39; the Zapatistas are and a standard attack on Leninist ideology. Something that has nothing (or at least not much) to do with the topic of conversation.

I&#39;d tend to disagree with you on that. Firstly im not an unconditional supporter of the Zapatistas or the little Marcos zealot you make me out to be. Further more i beleive that it has to do with the topic of the thread, because the the thread concerns an ostensibly Leninist party and their violent attack on gays. You then went on to say there was nothing abnormal with this, because Marxists and Marx himself think that Homsexuality is capitalist degeneration, so no one is perfect, and the Russian Communists needed to adapt to their own environment to be able to gain the support or the people, or words to that effect. What i then said (and which you didnt refute i might add) was that this was not necessary. Seeing as you&#39;d brough up Sup. MArcos anyway, and seemed to beleive i was his little monkey i decided to use the Zapatistas as an example. Also they were the first ot come to mind.

In conclusion my post is not a &#39;defence&#39; of Zapatismo. Additonally i find it ironic that you say i attacked Lenninism, when you say you did not attack Zapatism. This claim is ridiculous. Either neither of us is attacking anybody (which i think is right) or both of us are.



I am not saying they were against womyns rights. I am merely stating that they were of opinion that biologically speaking it is a womyns task to raise children.

These are mutually exclusive. If they beleved that women wer biologically predisposed to raising children, therefor it follows that they should not have the same rights as men.

[Messiah]

These are mutually exclusive. If they beleved that women wer biologically predisposed to raising children, therefor it follows that they should not have the same rights as men.

Exactly, therefore they were at odds with the basic revolutionary belief in equality, even if they didn&#39;t realize it at the time. The same in which if any of use should in future resist the attempts of any persons to become equal and full particiapting members in a free society, we will have betrayed our own values.

[Sentinel]

Ahaah, but you can forgive them?
Then why cant you forgive the communists in Russia?

We did not live in the days of Marx and Engels. They are dead and buried, we can not challenge them on this issue anymore, merely point out to living human beings that their position was false, if they indeed held such. Had we been there with the knowledge we possess, we would not have had to &#39;forgive&#39; them, but could have confronted them. But time machines are yet to be invented.. :rolleyes:

The possible racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever of historical figures, however magnificent their contributions to the workers cause, can never be an excuse to justify bigotry today. As rational thinkers we should be capable of settling which parts of their writings and theories remain valid and acceptable for a modern leftist paradigm, and what parts should be scrapped.

Lots, maybe most, of the early communists were victims of growing up in a world dominated by views based on prejudiced morals and pseudo-science to a degree unimaginable to most of us. We are not&#33; We have the experience and knowledge to understand the outrageous irrationality of all homophobia as well as the claim that homosexuality and capitalism would be related in any way.

Therefore it&#39;s our duty to stand up against the unjustified prejudices we today recognise as what they are. It&#39;s our duty to point them out and oppose them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:19 pm

You are telling me that you would condone a group that, despite having the praiseworthy end-goal of a socialist Russia (I assume - I honestly don&#39;t give a flying fuck what this group&#39;s aims are) they apparently seek to achieve this end by attacking a repressed section of society?

Do you hate Friedrich Engels for saying that Homosexuality is "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading"?
It&#39;s not a question of "hating" him; he&#39;s just wrong, plain and simple.


As you probably know Marx and Engels saw homosexuality as a capitalistic excess, from this point of view gay-rights would thus be un-proggresive.

And they were both wrong (150 years ago)


I am not stating that i agree with this point of view, but completely opposing an organization that does is well bull-shit.

This party not only supports reactionary beliefs that are 150 years old but in fact pointedly negates the process of fighting gay oppression.

Why is it "bullshit" to oppose them?


"It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories [...] springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. It is, mainly, a hobby of the intellectuals and of the sections nearest to them. There is no place for it in the party, in the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.”

Social puritanism, which is vulgar to say the least. I also find it quite worrying how dogmatic your support for these dead theoreticians is? Are we all to assume that we should take what these men said as scripture - unchanging and unquestionable?




Tell me, would you think it minor if they attacked black people, or a women&#39;s march, or any other repressed group?
Provide me with a socialist argument supporting racism?
Except for womyns rights of course, which traditional marxists oppose.

That&#39;s an evasion.

Answer the question: If this party had the same reactionary opinions towards black people, would your defence of them be the same?


As i said, they see homosexuality as an excess of bourgeouis society, thus trying to destroy certain excesses of capitalism.

Which is a false premise leading to reactionary behaviour towards an oppressed minority.

Essentially they&#39;re opinion is wrong and should be criticised with no uncertain terms because of it.

Are you telling us that they shouldn&#39;t be?




Attacking homosexuals because their sexual preference was invented by capitalism? Bullshit. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality was invented by capitalism is, frankly, a moron.

So, Marx and Engels were morrons?

On the question of homosexuality, clearly they were. Surely you don&#39;t agree that it is?

If, however, you happen to agree with their opinion I invite you to construct an argument in defence of it.

[Zeruzo]

I&#39;d tend to disagree with you on that. (...) were the first ot come to mind.

Right, so you are of opinion that this is not the case. It might be true to an extend, but seeing you are pro-gay in a society whereas being pro-gay is not at all considered strange quite changes the situation for you. Therefore it is more easy for you to accept pro-gay views. I am not saying the communists of Russia are purposely adapting to an anti-gay point of view. But that they are victims of the capitalist moral system themselves. Which was Marx and which was Engels. Of course communists should do as much as possible to get rid of this morality, but just doing away with the Russian communists beceause of this point in my eyes remains ridicolous&#33;



These are mutually exclusive. If they beleved that women wer biologically predisposed to raising children, therefor it follows that they should not have the same rights as men.

Perhaps, but communists were never pro full eqaulity anyway. Since this is impossible. Womyn are different then men, fact.



Exactly, therefore they were at odds with the basic revolutionary belief in equality, even if they didn&#39;t realize it at the time. The same in which if any of use should in future resist the attempts of any persons to become equal and full particiapting members in a free society, we will have betrayed our own values.

Ahaah, so the material conditions and morally dominant culture were mostly anti-gay which caused them to get to these beliefs, right?
So, morally speaking modern-day Russia is kind of at the level of 1950&#39;s Western Europe, see?



We did not live in the days of Marx and Engels. They are dead and buried, we can not challenge them on this issue anymore, merely point out to living human beings that their position was false, if they indeed held such. Had we been there with the knowledge we possess, we would not have had to &#39;forgive&#39; them, but could have confronted them. But time machines are yet to be invented..

And the French Communists are confronting them, BUT... not OPPOSING them&#33;



The possible racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever of historical figures, however magnificent their contributions to the workers cause, can never be an excuse to justify bigotry today. As rational thinkers we should be capable of settling which parts of their writings and theories remain valid and acceptable for a modern leftist paradigm, and what parts should be scrapped.

You are comparing Russia with western Europe thats like comparing a banana with an apple, its both fruit :rolleyes: .



Lots, maybe most, of the early communists were victims of growing up in a world dominated by views based on prejudiced morals and pseudo-science to a degree unimaginable to most of us. We are not&#33; We have the experience and knowledge to understand the outrageous irrationality of all homophobia as well as the claim that homosexuality and capitalism would be related in any way.

No, homosexuality is just more accepted. Whether or not there is much evidence supporting the gays does not matter if the dominant culture does not accept it.



Therefore it&#39;s our duty to stand up against the unjustified prejudices we today recognise as what they are. It&#39;s our duty to point them out and oppose them.

Like what the French do?
Without opposing them.



It&#39;s not a question of "hating" him; he&#39;s just wrong, plain and simple.

So you dont hate the Russian Communists then? Good to hear&#33;



This party not only supports reactionary beliefs that are 150 years old but in fact pointedly negates the process of fighting gay oppression.

Why is it "bullshit" to oppose them?

For it is opposing a progresive organization over such a minor issue&#33;




This party not only supports reactionary beliefs that are 150 years old but in fact pointedly negates the process of fighting gay oppression.

Why is it "bullshit" to oppose them?

Maybe where you come from, but where i live it was completely accepted only 50 years ago and it still is an accepted point of view.



Social puritanism, which is vulgar to say the least. I also find it quite worrying how dogmatic your support for these dead theoreticians is? Are we all to assume that we should take what these men said as scripture - unchanging and unquestionable?

Have i said i supported them in it?
No, read what i say. I said that it can be argued by certain progresive movements that gay-rights are not progresive&#33; Providing you with 3 (important) examples. That is all, i have stated a kaziljon times that i do NOT support these points of view.



Answer the question: If this party had the same reactionary opinions towards black people, would your defence of them be the same?

No. For you can not rationally claim it is progresive (which you can with gay-rights). AND it can be argued whether or not being gay is something your born with or not.
Again for the people of lesser intelligence, this is NOT my opinion, but it COULD be argued.



Which is a false premise leading to reactionary behaviour towards an oppressed minority.

Essentially they&#39;re opinion is wrong and should be criticised with no uncertain terms because of it.

Are you telling us that they shouldn&#39;t be?

Where did i say they should not be criticized?
I said they should not be abandoned, that they should not be proclaimed un-progresive or even anti-communist just beceause of this point of view.
I DO think that internal criticism would be better for the movement as a whole, for now the capitalists can easily exploit this and the criticism is heard by the capitalist media before the average member of the communist party of Russia has even heard it.



On the question of homosexuality, clearly they were. Surely you don&#39;t agree that it is?

Main Entry: mo·ron
Pronunciation: &#39;mor-"än
Function: noun
Etymology: irregular from Greek mOros foolish, stupid
1 usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person
2 : a very stupid person
- mo·ron·ic /m&-&#39;rä-nik, mo-/ adjective
- mo·ron·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- mo·ron·ism /&#39;mor-"ä-"ni-z&m/ noun
- mo·ron·i·ty /m&-&#39;rä-n&-tE, mo-/ noun

So, no

[razboz]

A beautifull defence Mr Zeruzo.


Of course communists should do as much as possible to get rid of this morality, but just doing away with the Russian communists beceause of this point in my eyes remains ridicolous&#33;


No it is not. Doing away with the Russian party because they violently attacked people is not ridiculous. It is in fact the smartest thing anyone could do. This party has proven it will attack innocent citizens attempting to defend their rights. This party is anti communist and can be safely ddeclared to be an enemy of free people everywhere. Well i say safely but theyd probably beat you up for saying it to their face :mellow:


Perhaps, but communists were never pro full eqaulity anyway. Since this is impossible. Womyn are different then men, fact.

Black People are different to White people. Fact.

I find this statement impossible to tolerate because in the Communism i know and ...well know Freedom is the mostimportant thing ot acheive. Freedom is what drives the Revolutionary. Accepting we give everyone freedom, how can we possibly tolerate that half the population gets more Freedom than the other, as is implied by your claim.


No, homosexuality is just more accepted. Whether or not there is much evidence supporting the gays does not matter if the dominant culture does not accept it.

This dominant culture of yours if very convenient. Very convenient in part because it appears impossible to oppose in any way. "if the dominant culture is so we cannot fight it". This is contrary to any revolutionary ideology whose main goal is to get rid of the "dominant culture".


For it is opposing a progresive organization over such a minor issue&#33;

So you think brutalising minority groups is a minor issue? Anyone beats up perfectly normal human beings for no ther reaosn than being at some perfectly normal protest and you think we should just...let it go?


No, read what i say. I said that it can be argued by certain progresive movements that gay-rights are not progresive&#33; Providing you with 3 (important) examples. That is all, i have stated a kaziljon times that i do NOT support these points of view.

By saying that attacking the Russian Communists over this issue is "ridiculous" you implicitly support their attacks.


2 : a very stupid person

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong depraved or degenerate is intolerant. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is somehow related to capitalism (which it isnt as the Greeks amongst others proved to us) is ignorant. Ergo Marx and Engles were intolerant and ignorant.

Maybe not morons.

[Zeruzo]

I had a full reply and my pc crashed. But since i&#39;m no lazy bum i&#39;ll post a new one :).


A beautifull defence Mr Zeruzo.

*bows* thank you, i&#39;m a very poetic individual as i&#39;ve been told.
Well no, most people think i&#39;m a rude bastard... but anyway:



No it is not. Doing away with the Russian party because they violently attacked people is not ridiculous. It is in fact the smartest thing anyone could do. This party has proven it will attack innocent citizens attempting to defend their rights.

Arguing from their point of view it is like doing the same as attacking Nazis.


This party is anti communist and can be safely ddeclared to be an enemy of free people everywhere. Well i say safely but theyd probably beat you up for saying it to their face

I would be amused if this was not such a serious mater.



Black People are different to White people. Fact.

Very true, only the differences are less fundamental (evolutionary speaking) then the differences between men and womyn.

http://www.google.nl/search?q=differences+...:en-US:official (http://www.google.nl/search?q=differences+between+women+and+men&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Do your own research, and you will notice.



I find this statement impossible to tolerate because in the Communism i know and ...well know Freedom is the mostimportant thing ot acheive.

Freedom is and always was subjective to eqaulity in every important revolutionary struggle of the past. Since eqaulity generallt involves freedom this is semi-true.


Accepting we give everyone freedom, how can we possibly tolerate that half the population gets more Freedom than the other, as is implied by your claim.

Are you supporting granting the bourgeouisie freedom?



This dominant culture of yours if very convenient. Very convenient in part because it appears impossible to oppose in any way. "if the dominant culture is so we cannot fight it". This is contrary to any revolutionary ideology whose main goal is to get rid of the "dominant culture".

I am not stating it is impossible to oppose. I am saying it is difficult to oppose in capitalist society. Trust me, i&#39;m all for a cultural revolution but it is not realistic to expect that every progresive is perfect&#33;



So you think brutalising minority groups is a minor issue?

It is not a minority group but a sexual preference.


Anyone beats up perfectly normal human beings for no ther reaosn than being at some perfectly normal protest and you think we should just...let it go?

They gave their reasons, those should be criticized. A big debate will rise in the Russian CP and the international communist movement. It will be corrected, et voila&#33;
If it is not corrected we should also accept it. That is the law of the majority.



By saying that attacking the Russian Communists over this issue is "ridiculous" you implicitly support their attacks.

I&#39;m not saying attacking (in the sense of arguing) the Russian Communists over this issue is wrong. I am saying that doing away with them is wrong&#33;
I do not support the attacks, that is like saying that anyone that supports Hezbollah in their anti-imperialist struggle is Muslim&#33;



Anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong depraved or degenerate is intolerant. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is somehow related to capitalism (which it isnt as the Greeks amongst others proved to us) is ignorant. Ergo Marx and Engles were intolerant and ignorant.


Actually Engels argued his point with the Greeks as an example. But maybe it is, maybe it isnt. its not reason to do away with both Engels and Marx.

[Cryotank Screams]

WTF? Just beceause they oppose gays?

YES


So, Marx and Engels were morrons?

Yea, in this case they definitely are.


Ok, traditional Marxists generally think women should not be working but should be raising the children etc...

Then FUCK traditional Marxists in this regard.


I am merely stating that they were of opinion that biologically speaking it is a womyns task to raise children.

Then their opinion is wrong.

Enough fucking apologetics all for the sake of dead men, and reactionary, and counter-revolution parties, and personally I feel if a group shows clearly homophobic tendencies, and acts, and they do not real quickly work to correct this, they are counter-revolutionary, they are going against the revolution, and of the people, there can be no comprise, you are either for the people, or against them, and putting dead thinkers, vanguards, parties, and their clearly homphobic, oppresive, or sexist views above the people and the direct needs and struggles thereof, is again to be against the revolution and the people.

You can sit here and defend dead men&#39;s idiotic ramblings and homophobic "Leftist," groups all you want, or you can sit here and defend the people, and the revolution, and say flat out that the people and parties that show this kind of unacceptable behavior are wrong, and should not be worked with, which do you choose?

[Zeruzo]

YES

So you are of opinion that workers rights should be of eqaul importance then gay-rights?
Even though there is an obvious gab. I have said this a kaziljon times already, but there are actually progresive reasons behind their homophobia, whether or not they are right does not mater in that context&#33;



Yea, in this case they definitely are.

Read the topic before saying stupid things.



Then FUCK traditional Marxists in this regard.

Just fuck them?
Are you not interested in their reasoning?



Enough fucking apologetics all for the sake of dead men, and reactionary, and counter-revolution parties,

I am not apologetic, i am merely placing things in the right context. Just doing away with an organization over this rather small issue whereas it can be argued whether or not it is progresive is ridicolous&#33;


and personally I feel if a group shows clearly homophobic tendencies, and acts, and they do not real quickly work to correct this, they are counter-revolutionary, they are going against the revolution, and of the people,

Since when are all proletarians homosexual?


there can be no comprise, you are either for the people, or against them,

And what if the people is against gays? (Which is clearly the case in Russia)


and putting dead thinkers, vanguards, parties, and their clearly homphobic, oppresive, or sexist views above the people and the direct needs and struggles thereof, is again to be against the revolution and the people.

In this case the CPRF is of opinion that this is what is good for the people. Whether or not you or i thinks its right does not mater. Such a minor issue should never be of such importance, the workers-rights struggle is priority.



You can sit here and defend dead men&#39;s idiotic ramblings and homophobic "Leftist," groups all you want, or you can sit here and defend the people, and the revolution

I AM defending a revolutionary party&#33; All you are doing is complaining how un-revolutionary they are beceause they fucking disagree with you&#33;
May i ask: what have you done for the revolution? Have you done more for the revolution then the CPRF? I dont fucking think so&#33; So stop doing away with revolutionary organizations just beceause their not perfect&#33; Everybody knows their not perfect, even themselves&#33; So, stop saying that and leave that bull-shit to the capitalists&#33; What we as communists should do is disagreeing with them and preferably make internal criticism, but we should NEVER do away with a progresive revolutionary organization&#33;

I am truly getting pissed of here...


and say flat out that the people and parties that show this kind of unacceptable behavior are wrong, and should not be worked with, which do you choose?

Not the side of the sectarian left-communists and anarchists. No thanks... I&#39;ll stick with the truly revolutionary organizations that actually DO make a change in this world and dont just jell &#39;boooooooo&#39;at the capitalists and true revolutionary&#39;s.

[Cryotank Screams]

Read the topic before saying stupid things.

Yea, because if someone insults, and points out the flaws of papa Marx and Engels when necessary, they are being ignorant huh?

No, and honestly this is getting down right ridiculous, I have read this entire thread, hence why I replied because this apologetics is getting absolutely fucking ridiculous, I mean honestly how long will you keep this up?

They were absolutely flat out, idiotic and wrong when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, and women&#39;s right, period, they made a mistake, they were wrong, get over it.


So you are of opinion that workers rights should be of equal importance then gay-rights?

All culture liberation struggles of the people, are the struggles of the working class against tyranny and oppression, they are both interconnected, and both are important.


Even though there is an obvious gab.

Just because you say there is a gap* doesn&#39;t mean there is, they are both intertwined, and are both crucial struggles of the people, there is no gap*.


have said this a kaziljon times already

That matters why? You can say something till your lungs collapse, and heart implodes, but that doesn&#39;t make what you are saying right.


but there are actually progresive reasons behind their homophobia

There is no "progressive," reasons behind homophobia, are you honestly going to try to take this position? Just because they have all the pretty red trimmings and veilings doesn&#39;t make them revolutionary, progressive, or Leftist.


Just fuck them?

Yea, that is what I said, was it not?


Are you not interested in their reasoning?

Not really, because I have a feeling it will be flat out bullshit, considering all the reasoning presented thus far has been nothing but horseshit.


I am not apologetic

This is the definition of apologetics.


i am merely placing things in the right context.

No, you are merely, trying to apologize for things that a simply and irrevocably unacceptable, there is not context to analyze, they said what they said, and since they did not change what they said, or reevaluated it, or admitted they were wrong, that means they believed every word that they said, same with that specific groups actions.

You are trying ever so hard and in vain, to apologize for a group because they bare the name "Communist."


Just doing away with an organization over this rather small issue whereas it can be argued whether or not it is progresive is ridicolous&#33;

This is not a fucking small issue, this is saying that a group, can bash me, without no apologies, because they bare the red name tag "Communism," which if you haven&#39;t noticed by now is BULLSHIT, culture liberation struggles like I have said before and intertwined into proletarian struggles, period, they are not progressive, they are being reactionary and counter-revolutionary, so yes fuck them, and infact I would probably work against them, given this behavior.


Since when are all proletarians homosexual?

By the people struggles I clearly meant of the overall culture struggles of the people and efforts to overcome oppression in all aspects, in this case it happened to be gay struggles.


And what if the people is against gays?

Then we must fight to show them different, get the information, and knowledge out there, and fight to abolish all existing groups, and institutions, that promote homophobia.


Such a minor issue should never be of such importance, the workers-rights struggle is priority.

Are you really this stupid? It is clearly not a minor issue, sexuality divisions are one of the main segregation lines, that separate workers from other workers and prevent worker solidarity, hence gay struggles are worker struggles, but I guess all struggles other than phantom rhetoric Communist struggles are minor, right? Ethnic struggles, gay struggles, women struggles, indigenous liberation struggles, all of those are all subservient, to hollow “Communist,” rhetoric right?

Come on, get a fucking clue.


I AM defending a revolutionary party&#33;

No, you are defending a reactionary, and counter-revolutionary, party&#33;


All you are doing is complaining how un-revolutionary they are beceause they fucking disagree with you&#33;

I am not complaining, I am point out that they are reactionary fools, because they are being and behaving as reactionary fools, and I decided to debate this because your apologetics are so ridiculous that I just had to point this out, and I don&#39;t fucking like hearing that my struggles are "minor," to the rhetoric struggles that "Communist parties," never fully fight for or fulfill anyway, even though gay struggles ARE worker struggles, don&#39;t erect a strawman and say I am doing this for sectarian reasons, I am doing this because I am staunchly against homophobia, no matter who does it.


May i ask: what have you done for the revolution?

Oh, please this is the route you wish to go? You are going to try to slander my revolutionary credentials, please, this is puerile, and points to clear lack of argument.


Have you done more for the revolution then the CPRF?

Yea, considering they are working against the revolution, so yea.


So stop doing away with revolutionary organizations just beceause their not perfect&#33;

This is not about being perfect, this isn&#39;t like a revolutionary group made a tactical mistake and failed, no this is a theoretical, and ideological mistake which is un-fucking-acceptable, I am sorry that you get disillusioned every time, a group has the red label "Communist," but the fact of the matter is, they are going against the struggles of the working class, and the struggles over archaic tyranny and oppression, to which they are validating and supporting said archaic tyranny and oppression.


So, stop saying that and leave that bull-shit to the capitalists&#33;

Boohoo, :rolleyes:, no, I will leave the homophobia to you, this party, and the capitalists, thanks.


with a progresive revolutionary organization

Listen carefully;

THEY ARE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY, AND REACTIONARY AND THUS THEY ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE.

Was that clear enough for you?


I&#39;ll stick with the truly revolutionary organizations that actually DO make a change in this world and dont just jell &#39;boooooooo&#39;at the capitalists and true revolutionary&#39;s

Yea, you are choosing to side with counter-revolutionaries, and reactionaries, that are unapologetically homophobic, and are working against true revolutionary efforts, and struggles, and to the revolution no less, all because they have all the fancy red trimmings, and labels, and spew the right rhetoric, alright, you have made your choice.

[razboz]

Cryotank Screams seems to have said it all really.

I wont bother quoting everythign because i think i can address it all wihtout it. The Communist Party in Russia are violent andhomophobic. Homophobic parties are reactionary and canbe considered to be agents of fascism, uniwtting perhaps, but agents non the less. Homosexuals are part of the "People" and their sstriggle for equal rights is the same as the struggle for any rights at all.one section of the population cannot be allowed to be considered substandard to the rest of the population.

This is not a question of policy, this is a fundamental question of ideology. The Russian COmmunist view of homosexuality is not compatible with a true Leftist perspective of society.

At this point i should like to remind Zeruzo of quote from JRR Tolkein&#39;s work:

"Not everything that glitters is gold"

and similarly not everything that shouts a lot, has a red flag and calls itself Marxist is a Communist...

[Zeruzo]

Yea, because if someone insults, and points out the flaws of papa Marx and Engels when necessary, (...) and women&#39;s right, period, they made a mistake, they were wrong, get over it.

No, beceause if something has already been said it is ridicolous to repeat it.



All culture liberation struggles of the people, are the struggles of the working class against tyranny and oppression, they are both interconnected, and both are important.

A cultural liberation struggle, really fancy word. But in essence gay-rights does not have much, if anything to do with this.



Just because you say there is a gap* doesn&#39;t mean there is, they are both intertwined, and are both crucial struggles of the people, there is no gap*.

Yes, beceause every worker is gay. <_<



That matters why? You can say something till your lungs collapse, and heart implodes, but that doesn&#39;t make what you are saying right.

Then reply to this one single statement in stead of repeating the same gibberish&#33;



There is no "progressive," reasons behind homophobia, are you honestly going to try to take this position? Just because they have all the pretty red trimmings and veilings doesn&#39;t make them revolutionary, progressive, or Leftist.

According to them there is.
And again as i have said a kaziljon times, i do not support this position myself&#33;
Also, them not supporting gay-rights does not give you the right to label them un-revolutionary, un-progressive and anti-leftist.



Not really, because I have a feeling it will be flat out bullshit, considering all the reasoning presented thus far has been nothing but horseshit.

Then argue this point. There is still no good reason to do away with them. Again sectarianism is showing...



No, you are merely, trying to apologize for things that a simply and irrevocably unacceptable

I am not apologizing i am saying that the CPRF should still be defended BUT criticized on this behalf.


they said what they said, and since they did not change what they said, or reevaluated it, or admitted they were wrong, that means they believed every word that they said, same with that specific groups actions.

Well, i dont know but attacking gays and then just apologizing for this. I think they actually did mean what they said, no?
There has probably been or there is probably a debate going on in the CPRF especially after the French CP criticized them.



You are trying ever so hard and in vain, to apologize for a group because they bare the name "Communist."

Not just beceause they bare it, but beceause they are. And again i am not apologizing i am pointing out that doing away with them is stupid AND un-progresive&#33;



This is not a fucking small issue, this is saying that a group, can bash me, without no apologies, because they bare the red name tag "Communism," which if you haven&#39;t noticed by now is BULLSHIT,

No, beceause they are of belief that being gay is wrong.
Gay-rights are less worth then Workers-rights, might sound harsh to an Anarchist but it is and should be. I would rather live in a society that supports workers-rights and no gay-rights then the other way around&#33; (Note that i am Bi-sexual myself, so it is not just some heterosexual crap i am giving you)


which if you haven&#39;t noticed by now is BULLSHIT, culture liberation struggles like I have said before and intertwined into proletarian struggles,

Cultural revolutions should be destroying bourgeouisie morality etc...
If homosexuality is in their opinion a bourgeouisie excess then what they are doing is waging a cultural struggle.


period, they are not progressive, they are being reactionary and counter-revolutionary, so yes fuck them, and infact I would probably work against them, given this behavior.

So they are not working for general progress, they have done everything possible to obstruct and prevent the revolution and have never done anything even remotely progresive? Which is what you are saying....


By the people struggles I clearly meant of the overall culture struggles of the people and efforts to overcome oppression in all aspects, in this case it happened to be gay struggles.

The overall struggle is against the bourgeouisie, not just a general &#39;freedom struggle&#39; which is subjective to the struggle against the class-enemy. Even IF they were reactionary, etc... there is still reasons to support them, consider it supporting hezbollah.



Then we must fight to show them different, get the information, and knowledge out there, and fight to abolish all existing groups, and institutions, that promote homophobia.

That is what could happen beceause you are not anti-gay. I mean really, Russia is basically a 3rd world country&#33; Name me one 3rd world country where homophobia is not widespread?



Are you really this stupid? It is clearly not a minor issue, sexuality divisions are one of the main segregation lines, that separate workers from other workers and prevent worker solidarity

Maybe, still no reason to oppose the CPRF...


but I guess all struggles other than phantom rhetoric Communist struggles are minor, right? Ethnic struggles, gay struggles, women struggles, indigenous liberation struggles, all of those are all subservient, to hollow “Communist,” rhetoric right?

Some of them are of more importance then others. But they are all subjective to the overall workers-liberation struggle.



No, you are defending a reactionary, and counter-revolutionary, party&#33;

For a reactionary and counter-revolutionart party they have done more for the revolution then a true and pure &#39;revolutionary&#39;like you&#33;



I am not complaining, I am point out that they are reactionary fools, because they are being and behaving as reactionary fools, (...) don&#39;t erect a strawman and say I am doing this for sectarian reasons, I am doing this because I am staunchly against homophobia, no matter who does it.

You being &#39;staunchly&#39;against homophobia and thereby rejecting revolutionary organizations does make you sectarian. You can claim not to be, but it is.



Boohoo, rolleyes.gif, no, I will leave the homophobia to you, this party, and the capitalists, thanks.

I am no homophobe, so this is bull-shit. I am merely defending a revolutionary party that has made a mistake. In the future you will notice that there are many more revolutionary organizations that make/made mistakes. Doing away with them is not the way to deal with this&#33;



Listen carefully;

THEY ARE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY, AND REACTIONARY AND THUS THEY ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE.

Was that clear enough for you?

Ok, let me analyze this for you:

COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY: working against the revolution, how and why are they working against the revolution by opposing gay-rights?

REACTIONARY: serving the reaction. Are they reacting towards a revolutionary current?

NOT PROGRESIVE: working against progression: arguably yes in THIS case. Overall: NO.

[razboz]

Ill just answer your three questions Zeruzo


COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY: working against the revolution, how and why are they working against the revolution by opposing gay-rights?


Homosexuals form an integral part of society and thus the working class. Gays are people, human beings. Cops and imperialists are too, arguably. Well Homosexuals are also part of the revolutionary struggle. They form an integral art of it. Opposing gay people equal rights is opposing fellow comerades equal rights. How is this justifiable?


REACTIONARY: serving the reaction. Are they reacting towards a revolutionary current?


Gay rights have been for a few years somewhere near the top of the list of many revolutionary movements. By opposing this measure they are reacting against the revolutionary beleif and struggle that gays should have equal rights.


NOT PROGRESIVE: working against progression: arguably yes in THIS case. Overall: NO.


Not only are they not progressive. They are anti progressive, because they violently oppose the progress of human rights and equality in Russia.

[Zeruzo]

Homosexuals form an integral part of society and thus the working class. Gays are people, human beings. Cops and imperialists are too, arguably. Well Homosexuals are also part of the revolutionary struggle. They form an integral art of it. Opposing gay people equal rights is opposing fellow comerades equal rights. How is this justifiable?

The same can be said about the rulling class. There are many gay bourgeouisie individuals where i live, so thats not really the point...



Gay rights have been for a few years somewhere near the top of the list of many revolutionary movements. By opposing this measure they are reacting against the revolutionary beleif and struggle that gays should have equal rights.


Revolutionary gay organizations?
I&#39;ve only seen reformists ones this far...



Not only are they not progressive. They are anti progressive, because they violently oppose the progress of human rights and equality in Russia.

That is not true, they are supporting progress in general. Such as workers and womyns rights.




This is not a question of policy, this is a fundamental question of ideology. The Russian COmmunist view of homosexuality is not compatible with a true Leftist perspective of society.

So, beceause they are not a part of the &#39;true&#39; and &#39;enlightened&#39; part of the left they are not being communist?

[Cryotank Screams]

No, beceause if something has already been said it is ridicolous to repeat it.

Though it reflect the same sentiment as other posters, it is not saying the same exact thing, hence it is no ridiculous.


A cultural liberation struggle, really fancy word.

I didn&#39;t think so, but maybe you have a limited vocabulary and are not use ot such "big and fancy," words?


But in essence gay-rights does not have much, if anything to do with this

Yea it does, as I said, they are both connected, as are women&#39;s struggles and working class struggles, and ethnic struggles and working class struggles, they are all connected, it&#39;s about overcoming tyranny and oppression for all workers, and uniting all of the workers under solidarity, and class unity, which means equality for all, and the destruction of all ideologies, and institution that are counter-revolutionary, and cause dividing lines among the proletariat, so yet again they ARE connected.


Yes, beceause every worker is gay. <_<

Oh shut the hell up, with your strawman arguments, I clearly stated that not every worker is gay, and that clearly wasn&#39;t the argument I was making, so quit being evasive.

Some workers are gay, hence working class struggles being related and the same as gay struggles.


Then reply to this one single statement in stead of repeating the same gibberish&#33;

My spelling, grammar, and vocabulary are or seem to be a lot better than yours, so I don&#39;t know what exactly your trying to get at with this particular argument.


And again as i have said a kaziljon times, i do not support this position myself&#33;

If you don&#39;t support this position, then why do you call those that do progressive and revolutionary, are getting emotionally invested in the debate, and are furiously and blindly defending these people?


According to them there is

This matters why? They could think there is a rational reason for beating and degrading women, does that make them right, or have progressive reasons behind such action? No, so why then do you claim that they have a "progressive," and rational reason behind bashing gay comrades?


Also, them not supporting gay-rights does not give you the right to label them un-revolutionary, un-progressive and anti-leftist.

Yea it does, if this conflicts with you blindness, and apologetics, that is not my problem.


Then argue this point. There is still no good reason to do away with them. Again sectarianism is showing...

I have, but you either dismissed it right of the bat, or fail to realize fully the points that I am making because you are still clinging to your position for dear life; I have clearly debated the issue, maybe you should scroll up a bit, and re-read my posts, and don&#39;t even start with the sectarian insults, because clearly your defending homophobes and counter-revolutionaries for sectarian reasons.


I am not apologizing i am saying that the CPRF should still be defended BUT criticized on this behalf.

You are most definitely apologizing for them, stating the have "rational and progressive," reasons behind their actions and beliefs, and other such bullshit, which is purely apologetics in it&#39;s most purest form.


Not just beceause they bare it, but beceause they are. And again i am not apologizing i am pointing out that doing away with them is stupid AND un-progresive&#33;

They are not Communist, though I have my criticism of Marxists, and Communists, the most certainly don&#39;t support homophobia, and homophobic acts of oppression, and see gay struggles as being subservient to hollow "Communist," rhetoric, when will you get it? They are not Communist, they are not revolutionary or progressive, and this has been pointed out.

Also again you saying they are progressive, and have rational reasons behind their actions, is apologizing for them.


No, beceause they are of belief that being gay is wrong.

Hence they are reactionary counter-revolutionaries, and should be fought against.


Gay-rights are less worth then Workers-rights, might sound harsh to an Anarchist but it is and should be.

No, it sounds idiotic and reactionary to any true Leftist worth his weight.


I would rather live in a society that supports workers-rights and no gay-rights then the other way around&#33;

Yea, hey there we go&#33; Let&#39;s live in a society full of lies and rhetoric, all for the sake of red trimmings and veiling, where the working class are oppressed all the same, and not only that gays, and women are oppressed, yay&#33;

Seriously, come the fuck on, you can&#39;t honestly be this blind, and naive.


(Note that i am Bi-sexual myself, so it is not just some heterosexual crap i am giving you)

So, what? You think just because your bi-sexual this somehow magically makes what your saying not the same old bullshit? No, it doesn&#39;t just because your bi-sexual, doesn&#39;t magically change the bullshit your apologizing for and espousing.


If homosexuality is in their opinion a bourgeouisie excess then what they are doing is waging a cultural struggle.

Just because they believe something, doesn&#39;t mean they are waging a cultural struggle, I mean I can believe I am waging war by sticking my dick in a red pop can, wave a red flag about, shouting Long Live Revolution&#33; like some mantra, but that doesn&#39;t mean I am waging a revolution, in the same respect just because they are a bunch of heteronormativist fuckwads, bashing gay comrades doesn&#39;t mean they are fighting a cultural struggle, and in reality they are working against the working class revolution.


Cultural revolutions should be destroying bourgeouisie morality etc...

Which they are clearly reinforcing, because homophobia, and heteronormativism is a aspect of bourgeoisie morality, so thus they are supporting, validating, and fighting for bourgeoisie morality.


The overall struggle is against the bourgeouisie, not just a general &#39;freedom struggle&#39; which is subjective to the struggle against the class-enemy. Even IF they were reactionary, etc... there is still reasons to support them, consider it supporting hezbollah.

First off, fuck the islamic-fascists of hezbollah, they are reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries and should be fought against, so in essence you just compared one counter-revolutionary to another.

Secondly, the overall struggle is against the bourgeoisie, AND all remaining vestiges, beliefs, and bondages of the bourgeoisie, such as homophobia, and gay struggles are by no means subservient to the class struggle considering that they are related to the class struggle.


Maybe, still no reason to oppose the CPRF...

There is no if, ands, or buts about it, it is FACT, and is very much a reason to oppose them.


Some of them are of more importance then others. But they are all subjective to the overall workers-liberation struggle.

Wrong, they are all equally important and connected, you can&#39;t have a united working class revolution without fighting these struggles as well, and firmly uniting the working class under one banner, with solidarity, and equality, so yet again this means the destruction of all working class segregation and divisions, and yet again, this means gay, ethnic, indigenous, and women struggles are all connected with the working class struggles.


For a reactionary and counter-revolutionart party they have done more for the revolution then a true and pure &#39;revolutionary&#39;like you&#33;

Oh please, this is not an argument and is irrelevant, you don&#39;t know me or my credentials, and if you must know I fight and seek to abolish, homophobia, sexism, racism, capitalism, and various other struggles by any means at my disposal, such as engaging in public debates, handing out flyers and pamphlets, talking to people, joining in demonstrations, strikes, and protest, anything at I can think of and do to the best of my current capabilities, that is what I do, I am working towards revolution, they however are not.


You being &#39;staunchly&#39;against homophobia and thereby rejecting revolutionary organizations does make you sectarian. You can claim not to be, but it is.

They are not bloody revolutionary, to be revolutionary you must working towards revolution, they are working against it, and the working class, hence me rejecting them do to this doesn&#39;t make me sectarian, it makes me revolutionary, so I am not claiming, I am not sectarian in this regard, sorry, you can&#39;t pin this label on me, when it is you, whom are clearly sectarian.


I am no homophobe, so this is bull-shit.

Yet, you so fervently support, , and defend homophobes, hmm,....makes one wonder doesn&#39;t it?


I am merely defending a revolutionary party that has made a mistake.

Yet again your are defending homophobes and reactionaries, just because the drape themselves in red, and claim the title, that is solely why you are defending them.


Doing away with them is not the way to deal with this&#33;

But calling them Communists, progressive, and revolutionaries, apologizing for them, and fighting, defending and supporting them is huh?


So they are not working for general progress, they have done everything possible to obstruct and prevent the revolution and have never done anything even remotely progresive? Which is what you are saying....

Just because the spew the rhetoric doesn&#39;t mean that is what they are actually fighting for, and if the support the bourgeoisie morality and views, and fight for them, then yes that is what I am saying, I mean what&#39;s next? Should we accept racist, and sexist groups? Or hey, why don&#39;t we just accept capitalists? :rolleyes:


I mean really, Russia is basically a 3rd world country&#33;

Not an excuse.


Name me one 3rd world country where homophobia is not widespread?

This is irrelevant and the point is just because a country is culturally backwards doesn&#39;t give their views validation, it means we should work to change and ablosih said views, via revolutionary efforts.


COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY: working against the revolution, how and why are they working against the revolution by opposing gay-rights?

They are working against the revolution because they are supporting worker segration, bourgeoisie morality, and division, thus preventing worker solidarity, and unity, needed for revolutionary efforts, and overall the revolution, hence they are working against the revolution.


REACTIONARY: serving the reaction. Are they reacting towards a revolutionary current?

Yea, the revolutionary current being worker solidarity and equality acorss the board, and the abolishment of all segregation and divisions, and the people, ideologies, beliefs, and institutions and groups that support them, hence they are reacting toward the revolutionary current.


Overall: NO.

Overall: YES

[Zeruzo]

For those that want to know my point of view in only a phew sentences should read my bolded sentences, saves you time to get to the core.



I didn&#39;t think so, but maybe you have a limited vocabulary and are not use ot such "big and fancy," words?


No, i was refering to the fact that you take the cultural revolution out of context.



Yea it does, as I said, they are both connected, as are women&#39;s struggles and working class struggles, and ethnic struggles and working class struggles, they are all connected, it&#39;s about overcoming tyranny and oppression for all workers, and uniting all of the workers under solidarity, and class unity, which means equality for all, and the destruction of all ideologies, and institution that are counter-revolutionary, and cause dividing lines among the proletariat, so yet again they ARE connected.

Having a certain sexual preference does not make you a minority&#33;
It is not proven jet that having this sexual preference is something you are born with. In fact a lot of research shows that every single individual is born bi-sexual. Thus if this is the case every single individual can be formed towards being heterosexual. You cant just make womyn men or blacks white, so this is not something you can compare, it is a choice you make and thus arguably a right or not. The CPRF argues its not, and even that being gay is anti-progresive. Thus there is no reason to do away with the CPRF for not supporting gay-rights&#33;



Oh shut the hell up, with your strawman arguments, I clearly stated that not every worker is gay, and that clearly wasn&#39;t the argument I was making, so quit being evasive.

Some workers are gay, hence working class struggles being related and the same as gay struggles.

Some workers support capitalism, hence capitalist right struggles are workers struggles?



My spelling, grammar, and vocabulary are or seem to be a lot better than yours, so I don&#39;t know what exactly your trying to get at with this particular argument.

I was not speaking of grammar, that would be stupid of me considering the fact i&#39;m not native-tongue english. With gibberish i was refering to you not making any sense.



If you don&#39;t support this position, then why do you call those that do progressive and revolutionary, are getting emotionally invested in the debate, and are furiously and blindly defending these people?

Beceause they are OVERALL progressive AND revolutionary&#33;
This is just one issue i dont support, it happens to me all the time. But i never reject those party&#39;s that i disagree with&#33;



This matters why? They could think there is a rational reason for beating and degrading women, does that make them right, or have progressive reasons behind such action?

Since you dont choose to be a womyn, no.
Arguing that the full emancipation of womyn is not progressive though is possible. I do not fully agree with this (keeping in mind some fundamental differences between men and womyn).


No, so why then do you claim that they have a "progressive," and rational reason behind bashing gay comrades?

I dont claim it IS progressive i claim it can be argued that it could be progressive. And that the CPRF is overall progressive.



I have, but you either dismissed it right of the bat, or fail to realize fully the points that I am making because you are still clinging to your position for dear life; I have clearly debated the issue, maybe you should scroll up a bit, and re-read my posts, and don&#39;t even start with the sectarian insults, because clearly your defending homophobes and counter-revolutionaries for sectarian reasons.

How am/can i be defending someone for sectarian reasons?



You are most definitely apologizing for them, stating the have "rational and progressive," reasons behind their actions and beliefs, and other such bullshit, which is purely apologetics in it&#39;s most purest form.

No, i will say it again: I do not support their actions, and i criticize them. But i dont just throw them away like that&#33;



They are not Communist, though I have my criticism of Marxists, and Communists, the most certainly don&#39;t support homophobia, and homophobic acts of oppression,

Are you sure you read this thread?
Cause strictly speaking there is a contradiction in this sentence.


They are not Communist, they are not revolutionary or progressive, and this has been pointed out.

No, you only made these claims. You never rationally pointed it out. All you did was: &#39;No your wrong, i&#39;m right they are counter-revolutionary, reactionary and NOT progressive&#33;&#39;



Also again you saying they are progressive, and have rational reasons behind their actions, is apologizing for them.

I am saying that &#39;they are of belief that&#39;&#33;



Yea, hey there we go&#33; Let&#39;s live in a society full of lies and rhetoric, all for the sake of red trimmings and veiling, where the working class are oppressed all the same, and not only that gays, and women are oppressed, yay&#33;

How is it a lie? You sure as hell havent proven that it is, since you are unwilling to argue with homophobes.
Also, the working-class is not oppressed in such a society but the free expresion of ones sexual preference is.
You have also now indirectly said that you would prefer to live in capitalist society with &#39;gay-rights&#39; then in a socialist society.



So, what? You think just because your bi-sexual this somehow magically makes what your saying not the same old bullshit? No, it doesn&#39;t just because your bi-sexual, doesn&#39;t magically change the bullshit your apologizing for and espousing.

Ohw, i dont know... it might change the fact that you were calling me a homophobe?
Just a guess....



Just because they believe something, doesn&#39;t mean they are waging a cultural struggle, I mean I can believe I am waging war by sticking my dick in a red pop can, wave a red flag about, shouting Long Live Revolution&#33; like some mantra, but that doesn&#39;t mean I am waging a revolution, in the same respect just because they are a bunch of heteronormativist fuckwads, bashing gay comrades doesn&#39;t mean they are fighting a cultural struggle, and in reality they are working against the working class revolution.

Which you have not proven as a fact. You just stated that they are inter-connected beceause there are gay-workers. Boohooo, big deal... Again i&#39;ll say: there are capitalism supporting workers, you want to grant the capitalists rights now for the sake of working class liberation?



Which they are clearly reinforcing, because homophobia, and heteronormativism is a aspect of bourgeoisie morality, so thus they are supporting, validating, and fighting for bourgeoisie morality.

Greek society showed a clear fondness of being fay amongst the working class. Having sex with little slave-boys, etc...
And as i said before a lot of gays are members of the bourgeouisie (at least where i live), thus it does not prove anything.



First off, fuck the islamic-fascists of hezbollah, they are reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries and should be fought against, so in essence you just compared one counter-revolutionary to another.

It was a &#39;what if&#39; scenario.



Secondly, the overall struggle is against the bourgeoisie, AND all remaining vestiges, beliefs, and bondages of the bourgeoisie, such as homophobia, and gay struggles are by no means subservient to the class struggle considering that they are related to the class struggle.

You have not proven at all that being gay is something proletarian and thus a proletarian right?



Wrong, they are all equally important and connected, you can&#39;t have a united working class revolution without fighting these struggles as well, and firmly uniting the working class under one banner, with solidarity, and equality, so yet again this means the destruction of all working class segregation and divisions, and yet again, this means gay, ethnic, indigenous, and women struggles are all connected with the working class struggles.

Gays are eqaully members of both the bourgeouisie and the proletariat, thus gay-rights are far from similar to ethnic freedoms and womyn struggles&#33;
It is not a class-issue and should therefore have no priority&#33;



Oh please, this is not an argument and is irrelevant, you don&#39;t know me or my credentials, and if you must know I fight and seek to abolish, homophobia, sexism, racism, capitalism, and various other struggles by any means at my disposal, such as engaging in public debates, handing out flyers and pamphlets, talking to people, joining in demonstrations, strikes, and protest, anything at I can think of and do to the best of my current capabilities, that is what I do, I am working towards revolution, they however are not.

I dont need to know you to know this is a fact. There is no individual in the world that has possibly done more for the revolution then the CPRF.



They are not bloody revolutionary, to be revolutionary you must working towards revolution, they are working against it, and the working class, hence me rejecting them do to this doesn&#39;t make me sectarian, it makes me revolutionary, so I am not claiming, I am not sectarian in this regard, sorry, you can&#39;t pin this label on me, when it is you, whom are clearly sectarian.

sec·tar·i·an Pronunciation (sk-târ-n)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
3. Narrow-minded; parochial.
n.
1. A member of a sect.
2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

I am defending an organization that does not fit within my point of view, therefore you can not possibly label me sectarian even if you would label me un-revolutionary or whatever it would only prove that i am not sectarian.



Yet, you so fervently support, , and defend homophobes, hmm,....makes one wonder doesn&#39;t it?

I do not defend this action, i defend the organization&#33;



But calling them Communists, progressive, and revolutionaries, apologizing for them, and fighting, defending and supporting them is huh?

I support them, just not their actions on this regard&#33;



This is irrelevant and the point is just because a country is culturally backwards doesn&#39;t give their views validation, it means we should work to change and ablosih said views, via revolutionary efforts.

It is terribly relevant. These people are born in a society where the most accepted point of view is homophobia, therefore it is very normal for someone to accept a homophobic point of view. As long as this does not conflict with the progressive nature of the CPRF i dont see what the problem is. I am almost certain that if you were born in a 3rd world country you would be a homophobe.
Unless you would turn gay yourself that is.



Yea, the revolutionary current being worker solidarity and equality acorss the board, and the abolishment of all segregation and divisions, and the people, ideologies, beliefs, and institutions and groups that support them, hence they are reacting toward the revolutionary current.

Communism is moving towards more eqaulity. If they are of opinion that being gay disturbs such a society then i can imagine them opposing that&#33;

[Cryotank Screams]

No, i was refering to the fact that you take the cultural revolution out of context.

I did no such thing, cultural liberation struggle, would be things such as a gay struggle, because the oppression of homosexuals would be a societal thing, much the same a a ethnic liberation struggle would apply to things such as black struggle, because of the oppression of people of color, hence nothing was taken out of context, you probably just misunderstood me.


Having a certain sexual preference does not make you a minority&#33;
It is not proven jet that having this sexual preference is something you are born with. In fact a lot of research shows that every single individual is born bi-sexual. Thus if this is the case every single individual can be formed towards being heterosexual. You cant just make womyn men or blacks white, so this is not something you can compare, it is a choice you make and thus arguably a right or not. The CPRF argues its not, and even that being gay is anti-progresive. Thus there is no reason to do away with the CPRF for not supporting gay-rights&#33;

First off, putting exclamation marks only makes you look pathetically stupid, and also it&#39;s nearly a scientific fact that homosexuality is natural and that you are born with the natural attraction to one&#39;s own sex, and this is not just limited to the human animal, but there are a variety of animals, hundreds if not thousands of species, that have shown that homosexuality is within that specific animal, hence it occurs in nature, and outside the realm of the nurture falsity, and there is absolutely no study that shows that humans are inherently bi-sexual, or any sexual identity for that matter, it&#39;s quite random, however, most people due to societal pressures suppress their sexuality, but that does not mean that they are not bi-sexual are gay, just means that they suppress it.

Thus considering that it is natural, and that the individual has no control over it, it is like women&#39;s rights, and ethnic rights, because again the individual did not decide, "hey I’m gay today," or "hey I do believe I’ll be straight since it&#39;s so in," that is simply not how it works and a myth, thus making homosexuality relatively a minority to a degree, and thus making the CPRF anti-progressive, reactionary, and counter-revolutionary, and thus makes your opinions on the matter equally as stupid, reactionary, and counter-revolutionary.


Some workers support capitalism, hence capitalist right struggles are workers struggles?

Don&#39;t be evasive, address the bloody point, or keep your mouth shut, some workers support capitalism, yes, however that doesn&#39;t make it a workers struggle because capitalism is inherently anti-worker, and said worker is only disillusioned of the situation, whereas gay struggles and rights are apart of the worker revolutionary struggles because not only is it a dividing line and segregation, it is also purely injustice, and should not be tolerated.

Are you honestly comparing gay struggles to capitalism? And you call yourself a Leftist, ignorant fuck, <_<.


With gibberish i was refering to you not making any sense.

Irrelevant argument to detract from debate and to further be evasive, and I am obviously making sense considering most of the forum agrees with me.


Beceause they are OVERALL progressive AND revolutionary&#33;

That is like saying "oh, yea, they are racist and sexist, but still they are overall progressive and revolutionary," which is complete bullshit, there is NO comprise, you either are, or you are not, so thus if they are homophobic they cease to be revolutionary and progressive, just like if a group was composed of white racists, or composed of misogynistic sexists; it&#39;s all or nothing, this isn&#39;t a cherry pick situation.


But i never reject those party&#39;s that i disagree with&#33;

This is not like a tactical or organizational problem, where you disagree, or like a theoretical argument like that of Marxists and Anarchists, this is an ideological problem to which the Left as an entire collective whole opposes such issue, hence since they are not fixing the problem, justifying it, and have fuckwads like you apologizing and defending them, they must be done away with and skipped, it&#39;s that simple, they are slowing down the gears of revolution, thus they must be skipped.


Since you dont choose to be a womyn, no.

You don&#39;t choose to be homosexual or bi-sexual, contrary to bourgeoisie propaganda, and pseudo-science.


Arguing that the full emancipation of womyn is not progressive though is possible.

Are you fucking retarded? Why would the full emancipation of women not be progressive to you or any one else for that matter, in any context? :blink:


I do not fully agree with this (keeping in mind some fundamental differences between men and womyn).

So to a degree you do, and what differences do you speak of? Oh, and if you going to try to feed me pseudo-science, and other metaphysical bullshit, then don&#39;t bother.


I dont claim it IS progressive i claim it can be argued that it could be progressive. And that the CPRF is overall progressive.

Claiming that it can be argued, coupled with you obvious emotional investment, and loyalty to the group points, that to a degree, you must think it&#39;s progressive, otherwise you would have denounced it to be an error, and again the CPRF, are a bunch of reactionaries.


How am/can i be defending someone for sectarian reasons?

Your a Communist, and they are "Communist," hence the sole reason why you are defending them so fervently, I mean if this was say any other sect, you would have flipped out, and denounced them, but no since they have that precious red veilings, here we are.

Or you actually believe this shit, and using the CPRF as a cover to defend your own beliefs under this guise, it&#39;s one of the two.


No, i will say it again: I do not support their actions, and i criticize them.

Then why oh why, do you continue to apologize for them, and defend them stating that arguments could be made, and other such homophobic bullshit? Oh yea, forgot, because their "Communist."


Are you sure you read this thread?

Yea, have you? You don&#39;t seem like your grasping what I am saying either that or you don&#39;t want to.


Cause strictly speaking there is a contradiction in this sentence.

Bullshit.


No, you only made these claims. You never rationally pointed it out. All you did was: &#39;No your wrong, i&#39;m right they are counter-revolutionary, reactionary and NOT progressive&#33;&#39;

Wrong, I did, Razboz did, Sentinel did, TaT did; basically I guarantee you, half if not more so of the forum will agree with my claims, and I most certainly pointed my arguments out, if you didn&#39;t read them, that&#39;s not my problem, scroll up, I specifically pointed out how and why they are counter-revolutionary, and reactionary, and how gay, ethnic, women, and indigenous struggles are all equal and connected to class struggles, so again if you didn&#39;t get it then scroll up and re-read what I wrote.


I am saying that &#39;they are of belief that&#39;&#33;

your also stating shit like arguments could be made, and blah blah, so you are yet again apologizing for them, and I am starting to believe you may agree with them.


You have also now indirectly said that you would prefer to live in capitalist society with &#39;gay-rights&#39; then in a socialist society.

No, I was indirectly was referring to a degraded "Marxist/Communist," society which is reasonable considering I am an Anarchist, ;) .


Also, the working-class is not oppressed in such a society but the free expresion of ones sexual preference is.

Homosexuals, such as I ARE apart of the working class, and help make up what is known as the working class, along with heterosexuals, and bi-sexuals, hence us workers would be oppressed, because some fucking idiots like CPRF are a bunch of homophobic counter-revolutionaries, with their heads firmly lodged up their collective ass, hence it would be a oppressive society.


How is it a lie? You sure as hell havent proven that it is, since you are unwilling to argue with homophobes.

Divorcing myself from my usual arguments based on Anarchist views, a "Communist," society that suppresses sexuality and sex, equal rights for ALL workers, not just to those whom fit them heteronormative out look, and such while in the same breath, claiming they are "Communists," and the workers have control, and it&#39;s a free and equal society would not only be a hypocrisy but a lie.

I am not unwilling to argue with homophobes, I am arguing against them right now, and possibly arguing with one, where have you been?

I have clearly proved my point again and again.


Ohw, i dont know... it might change the fact that you were calling me a homophobe?

I wasn&#39;t calling you a homophobe jack, though I am beginning to have suspicions, considering some of your arguments, and it would not change anything, and trying to play the "gay," card is not going to work, just because you say your bi-sexual doesn&#39;t magically give validation to what you are saying nor does it change the fact that you are wrong.


Which you have not proven as a fact.

Yea, mhmm, I pretty much have proven it to be fact.


You just stated that they are inter-connected beceause there are gay-workers.

Along with coupling arguments, re-read my posts.


Again i&#39;ll say: there are capitalism supporting workers, you want to grant the capitalists rights now for the sake of working class liberation?

What a stupid argument, and again I will say that capitalism has nothing to with worker&#39;s rights and struggles, because it is inherently anti-worker, and counter-revolutionary, whereas gay struggles are not only due to the segregation arguments, but also due to the fact that is simply an injustice, and oppressive to humanity overall, and thus for this reason also it connected to the revolution, just as anti-racism, and anti-sexism are.


Greek society showed a clear fondness of being fay amongst the working class. Having sex with little slave-boys, etc...

Greek society was a lot of things, but this doesn&#39;t mean a damn thing, homosexuals have also been burned at the stake, tortured, persecuted, and been claimed mentally ill for centuries, and if you want to play this game, the vast majority of the bourgeoisie has always been heterosexuals, so again this is irrelevant.


And as i said before a lot of gays are members of the bourgeouisie (at least where i live), thus it does not prove anything.

There is also a lot of gay workers to, like myself, and there is also black people, and women apart of the bourgeoisie too, infact Merkel is a women, so does that mean we should be persecuting all women and all black people now, and be racist, and sexist too? This type of collectivism is exactly what we should be fighting against.


It was a &#39;what if&#39; scenario.

It was also a flawed and poorly chosen one too.


You have not proven at all that being gay is something proletarian and thus a proletarian right?

Homosexuality is not limited to the any class, and infact, I am apart of the working class as I have stated, and I am sure there are a whole bunch of others like me out there as well, and in this forum too, there for it is a proletarian right and struggle.


Gays are eqaully members of both the bourgeouisie and the proletariat, thus gay-rights are far from similar to ethnic freedoms and womyn struggles&#33;
It is not a class-issue and should therefore have no priority&#33;

It is APART of the class-issue dumbass, and is closely wrapped up within the class struggle for the reasons I have provided above, but since you don&#39;t read what I write I will state them again, they are nothing but another dividing line that segregates the working class, thus preventing class unity, and solidarity, and said oppression is also oppressing and effecting the working class considering there is black workers, women workers, and gay workers, hence it is also class oppression, not to mention it is also an injustice and inherently oppressive, to overall human society, so it has the same priority as class struggles.

Also are you saying that we should ignore women, ethnic, gay, and indigenous struggles now? I mean considering they have "no priority," according to you, :rolleyes: .


I dont need to know you to know this is a fact. There is no individual in the world that has possibly done more for the revolution then the CPRF.

Bullshit, I could name a whole bunch of people that have done more for the revolution than the homophobic reactionaries of the CPRF.


I am defending an organization that does not fit within my point of view

Highly debatable.


therefore you can not possibly label me sectarian even if you would label me un-revolutionary or whatever it would only prove that i am not sectarian.

I have already addressed this, see above.


I do not defend this action, i defend the organization&#33;

Yes, the organization that commits the act, hence by relation you are supporting the act indirectly, or arguable directly.


I support them, just not their actions on this regard&#33;

By supporting them you are again by relation, supporting their actions on this subject, and the argument above is like saying you support capitalists, but not their actions.


It is terribly relevant.

No, it&#39;s not.


These people are born in a society where the most accepted point of view is homophobia, therefore it is very normal for someone to accept a homophobic point of view.

It&#39;s normal perhaps, but it should not be accepted by any means or degrees, and take germany for example, germany came from the very lows of facism, yet have emerged as one of the leading countries on the gay rights issue, so it&#39;s not about indoctrination, this can be overcome by revolutionary efforts, and thus memetic engineering is no excuse or validation.


As long as this does not conflict with the progressive nature of the CPRF i dont see what the problem is.

It does conflict, to a very extreme degree, and the CPRF are yet fucking again not progressive, I mean fascists and nazis are homophobic and do these types of actions.


I am almost certain that if you were born in a 3rd world country you would be a homophobe. Unless you would turn gay yourself that is.

No, I would certainly not be homophobic, and I know people who have been raised in the most homophobic of households, but have emerged as some of the most fervent gay struggle supporters, it&#39;s simply not a nurture issue, and you don&#39;t "turn," gay, you are gay by birth, it&#39;s a natural attraction.


Communism is moving towards more eqaulity.

Which can NEVER be achieved if you are homophobic.


If they are of opinion that being gay disturbs such a society then i can imagine them opposing that&#33;

This is utter non-sense, you can&#39;t have equality, true equality and discriminate people based on ethnicity, gender, or sexuality, simply can&#39;t be done, and homosexuality by no means disturbs society in any context, and I would expect the same argument from the bourgeoisie and other reactionaries, thus making the CPRF again reactionary and counter-revolutionary, and against equality and true Communism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:03 pm

No, so why then do you claim that they have a "progressive," and rational reason behind bashing gay comrades?

I dont claim it IS progressive i claim it can be argued that it could be progressive.
You can argue that the sky is purple, that doesn&#39;t matter because the sky is in fact blue. It doesn&#39;t matter what bizarre arguments the phony "Communists" come up with to cover their asses, because those arguments are completely bogus.


And that the CPRF is overall progressive.

Bullshit. Their participation in this anti-gay attack is a symptom of their overall nationalist, fascist-tinged political orientation, as even the French Communist Party has noticed.

The CPRF is not a workers organization. It is a remnant of the bureaucratic machine that ruled the USSR as an anti-worker regime for decades. The Soviet CP long ago ceased to be even a political party - it was a club people joined to get personal privileges.

Millions of workers have been taken in by the rhetoric of KPRF leader
Zyuganov, who like the RKRP, fumes against the oligarchy and promises to
fight for justice for working people. However, millions of workers have
also shown (even allowing for the corrupt election counting techniques of
Putin), that they do not support the KPRF, at least not strongly enough to
want to vote for them. And with good reason. The KPRF has demonstrated its
commitment to the market, approving every government budget and even
entering the government itself during the terms of premiers Kirienko and
Primakov, (under the latter the draconian plans for a new Labour Code were
first drawn up). Further, many people have experienced the true nature of
the KPRF at the local and regional levels, where for example KPRF governors
have sent in armed riot police to physically crush workers struggles, as in
Yasnogorsk and the Kusbass.

The RKRP, by contrast, exposes truthfully the relation of the KPRF to
capital (though never that of their own leadership&#33;), points out KPRF
hypocrisy, highlights their treacherous actions during strikes. As such,
they reach militant workers who have become disillusioned with the
dishonesty of the Zyuganov, and are searching for a political party which
genuinely fights the tyranny of the market. And the RKRP are expert at
pretending to be just that.

The Red-Brown Phenomenon

For many years now since the fall of the Soviet Union it has been normal to
read in the mainstream American and European press about the "red-brown"
opposition to the democrats in Russia. Even leaving aside the fact that so
many of the so-called "democrats" themselves are deeply authoritarian, it
is understandable that, as socialists, we should be suspicious about
capitalists describing left movements as mixed with nazi ideology.
Nevertheless, an examination of the milieu that emerged as the main
opposition to the "democrats" in the early 90&#39;s shows that the term
"red-brown" is for the most part, sadly correct.

The largest and most powerful group of "oppositionists" to emerge from the
ashes of the CPSU was certainly the Communist Party of the Russian
Federation (KPRF) led by Zyuganov. Though they project themselves, in their
official propaganda, as defenders of the working class, ferociously opposed
to the privatisation which has caused such widespread misery, in practice
this party rapidly became converted to the politics of the market.
Simultaneously they adopted Russian ultra-nationalism, with nazi-style
scapegoating of Jews as official policy (6). When the second Chechen war
broke out in 1999, they tried to outdo the "strong man" Putin himself in
declarations of anti-Muslim hatred and calls for blood.

That the KPRF has embraced racism and abandoned class struggle should
surprise no one. Zyuganov had already demonstrated his commitment to the
nationalist cause at the beginning of the 1990&#39;s, founding a number of
"patriotic" fronts, including with figures such as the ultra-racist
Prokhanov, today editor of "Zavtra". "Slavic civilisation, represented by
the Russian Empire", is for Zyuganov the progressive force - not workers
fighting for socialism (7). He himself declares that his favourite book is
a work by the ultra-reactionary 1920&#39;s philosopher Ivan Il&#39;in, (which was
widely understood at the time of writing as a call to kill Bolsheviks)
Contacts between the KPRF and open nazi groups have also occurred at top
levels of the party (8).
From the antifa (antifascist) info-bulletin (http://www.ngy1.1st.ne.jp/~ieg/icrm/2001/01/01n982.htm)

[Zeruzo]

First off, putting exclamation marks only makes you look pathetically stupid, and also it&#39;s nearly a scientific fact that homosexuality is natural and that you are born with the natural attraction to one&#39;s own sex

It has never been proven. It is a theory just like the bi-sexual theory. BUT the bi-sexual theory is far more correct to this point in my opinion. Anyway, as long as there is no full proof that it is natural i do not see it as eqaul to a womyns liberation struggle.


and this is not just limited to the human animal, but there are a variety of animals, hundreds if not thousands of species, that have shown that homosexuality is within that specific animal, hence it occurs in nature, and outside the realm of the nurture falsity

Yes, it is proven that if animals have been without a female mating partner for a long time they tend to hump on some males. This does show bi-sexual tendency&#39;s but not really homosexual ones.


and there is absolutely no study that shows that humans are inherently bi-sexual

Yes there is, its even very rational when you think about it. Everyone is female at first in the womb and eventually turns male or female, so them being bi-sexual would be more then normal.
http://www.petertatchell.net/queer%20theor...%20to%20gay.htm (http://www.petertatchell.net/queer%20theory/goodbye%20to%20gay.htm)
Is an article about this theory (i havent read it, so i could be wrong :P)




Thus considering that it is natural, and that the individual has no control over it, it is like women&#39;s rights, and ethnic rights,

If so, then yes.


because again the individual did not decide, "hey I’m gay today," or "hey I do believe I’ll be straight since it&#39;s so in,"

No, but the material conditions could force them into one position or another.


that is simply not how it works and a myth, thus making homosexuality relatively a minority to a degree, and thus making the CPRF anti-progressive, reactionary, and counter-revolutionary, and thus makes your opinions on the matter equally as stupid, reactionary, and counter-revolutionary.


Not really, considering the fact that this is not proven. So within this context and that of the CPRF being a 3rd world party it could be argued that it is progresive.



Don&#39;t be evasive, address the bloody point, or keep your mouth shut, some workers support capitalism, yes, however that doesn&#39;t make it a workers struggle because capitalism is inherently anti-worker, and said worker is only disillusioned of the situation, whereas gay struggles and rights are apart of the worker revolutionary struggles because not only is it a dividing line and segregation, it is also purely injustice, and should not be tolerated.

And in their opinion gay-rights are no good for the proletariat. That was the point i was trying to make...


and I am obviously making sense considering most of the forum agrees with me.

Well, for that to hapen you dont really need to make sense...
It&#39;s like saying "Thats Jewish propaganda" on Stormfront, everyone agrees blindly anyway without being critical themselves.



This is not like a tactical or organizational problem, where you disagree, or like a theoretical argument like that of Marxists and Anarchists, this is an ideological problem to which the Left as an entire collective whole opposes such issue, hence since they are not fixing the problem, justifying it, and have fuckwads like you apologizing and defending them, they must be done away with and skipped, it&#39;s that simple, they are slowing down the gears of revolution, thus they must be skipped.

They are not slowing down anything. They just have a wrong position, i havent seen any progress slowing down. I even think that if they would change this point of view the revolution would be factually slowed down.



You don&#39;t choose to be homosexual or bi-sexual, contrary to bourgeoisie propaganda, and pseudo-science.

Well then, mr scientist. Show me some real proof?



Are you fucking retarded? Why would the full emancipation of women not be progressive to you or any one else for that matter, in any context?

For example, the physical and mental features of males and females. Females are better at feeling and guessing other peoples emotions, that is beceause they used to look over the emotional and phycial well-being of the tribe, making them great nurses. A male is more musled beceause they had to hunt etc... Making them more suitable for building stuff for example. Therefore forcing the hospitals to have just as much female as male nurses would be ridicolous, since it is an evolutionary thing&#33; In this way the full emancipation of womyn is un-progressive.



So to a degree you do, and what differences do you speak of? Oh, and if you going to try to feed me pseudo-science, and other metaphysical bullshit, then don&#39;t bother.

No, i&#39;m talking about real science here. And i have given a proven example above.



Claiming that it can be argued, coupled with you obvious emotional investment, and loyalty to the group points, that to a degree, you must think it&#39;s progressive, otherwise you would have denounced it to be an error, and again the CPRF, are a bunch of reactionaries.

It is a mistake, not an error. If it was an error i would have still critically supported them.



Your a Communist, and they are "Communist," hence the sole reason why you are defending them so fervently, I mean if this was say any other sect, you would have flipped out, and denounced them, but no since they have that precious red veilings, here we are.

Of course i would have flipped out over other groups. I flipped out in a more moderated way during this attack too. But this is no reason for me to denounce them, and yes that is beceause they are communists and in my opinion still progressive.



Or you actually believe this shit, and using the CPRF as a cover to defend your own beliefs under this guise, it&#39;s one of the two.

If that was the case i would have brought up much stronger points in defence of this homophobia. Really, if these were my points i would do further study cause they are way too weak to defend this point of view.



Then why oh why, do you continue to apologize for them, and defend them stating that arguments could be made, and other such homophobic bullshit? Oh yea, forgot, because their "Communist."

Cause arguments COULD be made in defence of this, you can not rationally deny that...



Yea, have you? You don&#39;t seem like your grasping what I am saying either that or you don&#39;t want to.

I have a grasp, i just disagree.



Bullshit.

No, beceause you were saying that marxism is pro gay-rights while Marx himself was against gay-rights.



Wrong, I did, Razboz did, Sentinel did, TaT did; basically I guarantee (...) if you didn&#39;t get it then scroll up and re-read what I wrote.

I read it and i do not agree with it. Simple as that.



your also stating shit like arguments could be made, and blah blah, so you are yet again apologizing for them, and I am starting to believe you may agree with them.


That might be beceause you are forcing me into a position where i have to explain their point of view in order to defend them as a progresive organization&#33;



Homosexuals, such as I ARE apart of the working class, and help make up what is known as the working class, along with heterosexuals, and bi-sexuals, hence us workers would be oppressed, because some fucking idiots like CPRF are a bunch of homophobic counter-revolutionaries, with their heads firmly lodged up their collective ass, hence it would be a oppressive society.

And some members of the ruling class are. It is not good of the CPRF to do this, but there again is no reason to do away with them&#33;



Divorcing myself from my usual arguments based on Anarchist views, a "Communist," society that suppresses sexuality and sex, equal rights for ALL workers, not just to those whom fit them heteronormative out look, and such while in the same breath, claiming they are "Communists," and the workers have control, and it&#39;s a free and equal society would not only be a hypocrisy but a lie.

nobody said much about eqaul rights, but about eqaulity. Of course gay-rights are a part of more eqaulity and this is lacking with the CPRF but that does not mean they do not overall speaking support eqaulity&#33;



I am not unwilling to argue with homophobes, I am arguing against them right now, and possibly arguing with one, where have you been?

IF i would be a homophobe i would just tell it. I am not at all afraid to give you my opinion and i would certainly give it if i were a homophobe.


just because you say your bi-sexual doesn&#39;t magically give validation to what you are saying nor does it change the fact that you are wrong.

That is not a fact but an opinion.



Greek society was a lot of things, but this doesn&#39;t mean a damn thing, homosexuals have also been burned at the stake, tortured, persecuted, and been claimed mentally ill for centuries, and if you want to play this game, the vast majority of the bourgeoisie has always been heterosexuals, so again this is irrelevant.

I was in no way supporting that point of view, merely pointing it out.
Though in my country the rulling class has a lot of gays in it.



There is also a lot of gay workers to, like myself, and there is also black people, and women apart of the bourgeoisie too, infact Merkel is a women, so does that mean we should be persecuting all women and all black people now, and be racist, and sexist too? This type of collectivism is exactly what we should be fighting against.

Well, actually womyn and blacks are still economically suppressed which is not the case with homosexuals who are only societally oppressed. Of course this is not a good thing, but considering the fact that it is not proven that being gay is something you are born with. I think we should just be defending the CPRF after this mistake (and of course criticize the mistake).



Homosexuality is not limited to the any class, and infact, I am apart of the working class as I have stated, and I am sure there are a whole bunch of others like me out there as well, and in this forum too, there for it is a proletarian right and struggle.

No, therefore it is a freedom one can be granted or not. See, again i will say just beceause workers are homosexual too does not make it merely proletarian.



It is APART of the class-issue dumbass, and is closely wrapped up within the class struggle for the reasons I have provided above, but since you don&#39;t read what I write I will state them again

I have read them and have replied to most of not all of them, but just for you i will reply to every single sentence from this point on:


they are nothing but another dividing line that segregates the working class, thus preventing class unity, and solidarity,

Only, the rulling class counts just as much homosexuals as the proletariat. Making them just as divided, no?


and said oppression is also oppressing and effecting the working class considering there is black workers, women workers, and gay workers, hence it is also class oppression,

So, beceause there are black and womyn workers. Gay-rights are proletarian?
riiiiiiiiiiight...



Also are you saying that we should ignore women, ethnic, gay, and indigenous struggles now? I mean considering they have "no priority," according to you,

Ok, my list works like this:

1. Workers rights (for obvious reasons)
2. Ethnic rights (beceause there are not much evolutionary differences between blacks and whites anyway, and it is thus ridicolous to oppose ethnic rights)
3. Womyns rights (beceause there are recognizable differences but both groups men and womyn should be treated eqaully)

Now these 3 in any organization make me label it progressive. After this are all rights whereas you have a choice.

4. Gay-rights
5. using Soft-drugs
etc...



Bullshit, I could name a whole bunch of people that have done more for the revolution than the homophobic reactionaries of the CPRF.

Sure, give me an example...
Che Guevara or whatever wont count, eh...



Highly debatable.

And why do you think so?



Yes, the organization that commits the act, hence by relation you are supporting the act indirectly, or arguable directly.

I am not supporting it, but criticizing it. You are forcing me in a position whereas i have to justify what they have done, beceause i still support this organization as being progressive.



It&#39;s normal perhaps, but it should not be accepted by any means or degrees, and take germany for example, germany came from the very lows of facism, yet have emerged as one of the leading countries on the gay rights issue, so it&#39;s not about indoctrination, this can be overcome by revolutionary efforts, and thus memetic engineering is no excuse or validation.

Well if you dont provide me with any background information it will be difficult for me to analyze it. It&#39;s like how anti-semitism was very difficult to eradicate in the former USSR even though they tried very hard even creating a new Jewish homeland.



It does conflict, to a very extreme degree, and the CPRF are yet fucking again not progressive, I mean fascists and nazis are homophobic and do these types of actions.

Nazi&#39;s generally support green energy and animal-rights too. &#39;They do it so it must be wrong&#39;is a ridicolous argument.
It was not good, but it shouldnt be taken to such an extreme either&#33;



No, I would certainly not be homophobic, and I know people who have been raised in the most homophobic of households, but have emerged as some of the most fervent gay struggle supporters, it&#39;s simply not a nurture issue, and you don&#39;t "turn," gay, you are gay by birth, it&#39;s a natural attraction.

No, theres more factors then just ones household. Again this does not contradict the bi-sexuality theory, so i do not see anything as disproven.



This is utter non-sense, you can&#39;t have equality, true equality and discriminate people based on ethnicity, gender, or sexuality, simply can&#39;t be done, and homosexuality by no means disturbs society in any context, and I would expect the same argument from the bourgeoisie and other reactionaries, thus making the CPRF again reactionary and counter-revolutionary, and against equality and true Communism.

The arguments that i have read range from &#39;homosexuals cant get children&#39; to &#39;gays are immoral&#39;. I disagree with this, but these are the arguments. It should be pointed out that those are wrong, and they should be corrected.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:33 pm


First off, putting exclamation marks only makes you look pathetically stupid, and also it&#39;s nearly a scientific fact that homosexuality is natural and that you are born with the natural attraction to one&#39;s own sex

It has never been proven. It is a theory just like the bi-sexual theory. BUT the bi-sexual theory is far more correct to this point in my opinion. Anyway, as long as there is no full proof that it is natural i do not see it as eqaul to a womyns liberation struggle.
More bullshit. Why does it matter what causes homosexuality, or whether it&#39;s "equal" to other struggles or forms of oppression?

One, whatever the cause of homosexuality, consenting adults have the right to run their own sex lives. So that really has nothing to do with anything.

And this isn&#39;t a debate over what priority to place on supporting the fight for gay rights versus other progressive struggles. The CPRF didn&#39;t de-prioritize gay rights, they attacked a gay rights action. And this isn&#39;t counterposed to some other progressive goal, rather it&#39;s part of their overall red-brown orientation.

[Cryotank Screams]

It has never been proven.

It pretty much has.


It is a theory just like the bi-sexual theory. BUT the bi-sexual theory is far more correct to this point in my opinion. Anyway, as long as there is no full proof that it is natural i do not see it as eqaul to a womyns liberation struggle.

The theory that bi-sexuality is inherently in every individual is not even a bloody theory really, just a composition of bullshit assertions and outdated pseudo-science.

hat tangible and empirical proof do you have of this? From what I have read this theory is based on false assertions, outdated, shoddy, and false scientific "findings," however the theory/fact that homosexuality is natural, has substantial scientific evidence to back this up, along with other arguments in other arenas, see below books for more information;

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.

Evolution&#39;s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People by Joan Roughgarden.


Yes, it is proven that if animals have been without a female mating partner for a long time they tend to hump on some males. This does show bi-sexual tendency&#39;s but not really homosexual ones.

Homosexual animals also form bonds with their same-sex partner, just as in the human animals, and goes beyond mere same-sex mounting, therefore this shows homosexuality, and not bi-sexuality, though bi-sexuality is present in animals as well, they are distinct from homosexual animals who prefer their sex period, regardless of small opposite sex population or surplus opposite sex population.


Originally posted by The Natural "Crime against Nature"

"Pseudo-heterosexuality." This is the favorite explanation of gay rights opponents. They claim that homosexuality in animals is the result of a shortage of, or unavailability of, heterosexual mates. There are a number of problems with this hypothesis.

First, in many species with skewed sex ratios, homosexuality is often seen more frequently in the sex which is in shorter supply rather than in the sex with a surplus of individuals.

Second, in some species where homosexual bonds form in a surplus sex, the other sex does not form homosexual bonds when it is in surplus. Humboldt penguins are an example. Males form homosexual bonds when there is a surplus of males, but females do not do so when they are in surplus.

Third, in other species, homosexual mountings occur with the same frequency regardless of whether there is a surplus, and sometimes even more frequently among balanced populations than skewed ones. Indeed, among yellow baboons, between 17% and 24% of younger individuals engage in same-sex mountings, when their sexes are roughly equal in their population, but among older yellow baboons, the males eventually outnumber the females by two-to-one, but homosexual mountings occur in only about 10% of such older individuals.


Yes there is, its even very rational when you think about it. Everyone is female at first in the womb and eventually turns male or female, so them being bi-sexual would be more then normal.

This is pure idiocy, everyone is not female within the womb, and the lack of distinguishing genitals is not proof of this, because gender from a genetic standpoint is determined by chromosomes which can&#39;t be changed, the male has the XY chromosome whereas the female thus has the XX chromosome; in the womb the baby doesn&#39;t switch from having the XX chromosome to the XY chromosome upon the emergence of the male external genitals, so therefore going upon this analogy this is not rational at all, infact it&#39;s down right idiotic.

The article doesn&#39;t prove anything, really because homosexuality alluded Freud and to which I feel on this subject he was wrong, and that his wrong assertions where based on shoddy and false scientific research during the period in which he lived, therefore all theories deriving from this are thus as wrong as his assertion.


If so, then yes.

It IS so.


No, but the material conditions could force them into one position or another.

No, material conditions would lead the homosexual to hide and or suppress his sexuality, this however does not make him a heterosexual, it means he is just a repressed homosexual, because regardless of "reversing," techniques, you can&#39;t reshape, and brainwash yourself to another sexual preference, it is simply impossible, therefore it is only logical to assume that material conditions do not switch or alter one&#39;s sexuality.


Not really, considering the fact that this is not proven. So within this context and that of the CPRF being a 3rd world party it could be argued that it is progresive.

Just because you say it isn&#39;t fact doesn&#39;t mean, "poof magic magic," it&#39;s true, and see information above, and I don&#39;t care in which culture or time it is in, it is still not a progressive stance in any context, I don&#39;t care what era, culture, region, or such that is being under analysis, there is absolutely, positively NO EXCUSE, for this type of behavior, none, zip, nada; it isn&#39;t progressive.

Also, is there any real proof that modern day russia qualifies as a third world country? I mean comparing it to other confirmed third world countries it seems a lot better off.


And in their opinion gay-rights are no good for the proletariat.

Which is a bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionary, and reactionary assertion.


Well, for that to hapen you dont really need to make sense... It&#39;s like saying "Thats Jewish propaganda" on Stormfront, everyone agrees blindly anyway without being critical themselves.

Don&#39;t try to pull this shit, scumfront, and revleft are by no means comparable, there is no material or tangible proof for the their idiocy, whereas what I am saying is based on science, psychology, sociology, and other such studies, and provides empirical proof for our assertions, thus myself and others, are not comparable to the scumfront crowd, so in our case, this would generally mean we make sense, and are thus right, and this no means blind agreement, we all stated our opinions on and by their own weight, and did not rely on one another.


They are not slowing down anything.

Bullfuckingshit.


They just have a wrong position, i havent seen any progress slowing down.

It&#39;s not just this position, see information provided by Severin.


I even think that if they would change this point of view the revolution would be factually slowed down.

Then you are absolutely bat shit crazy and fucking retarded; what are you even basing this on? Is this some kind of weird form of satire? Are you even serious?


Well then, mr scientist. Show me some real proof?

See above information, along with the following essay;

The Natural "Crime Against Nature": A Brief Survey of Homosexual Behaviors In Animals by Scott Bidstrup;
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


For example, the physical and mental features of males and females. Females are better at feeling and guessing other peoples emotions, that is beceause they used to look over the emotional and phycial well-being of the tribe, making them great nurses. A male is more musled beceause they had to hunt etc... Making them more suitable for building stuff for example. Therefore forcing the hospitals to have just as much female as male nurses would be ridicolous, since it is an evolutionary thing&#33; In this way the full emancipation of womyn is un-progressive.

So your entire reasoning is that females are the docile, baby makers, while males are the physical superior hunters?

Come on, do honest think that the human female animal does not have the capacity for both functions of the human experience? Do you not think likewise that the male human animal also has the capacity for both functions? I mean in species such as the reed warbler, the females of this species practices infanticide on rivals&#39; eggs, and I have heard mother rabbits also commit infanticide to weed out unwanted babies among the litter, and another example is of female wasps that battle to take control of a colony with extreme ferocity.

So it is clear that the human female yes does have the capacity to nurture and other traditional roles, while also having equally the capacity to do the opposite, it is really up to the women which of these she wants to do.

What you are trying to do is impose gender roles based on past prejudices, culture based assertions, and pseudo-science of old to back up these claims, and to gender roles I say the should be abolished and fuck them, when it is quite clear that other species and our own, that each gender can fill any of these roles, it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do, and said individual is not predestined by any specific gender role.

No one, is trying to force anyone except you, and this idiotic assertion, and it&#39;s by no means a evolutionary or scientific thing, considering science and nature would prove the contrary, hence yet again, the CPRF is not progressive.


No, i&#39;m talking about real science here. And i have given a proven example above.

No, you were definitely talking about gender specific roles, and the pseudo-science that backs these up, therefore it isn&#39;t proven.


It is a mistake, not an error.
Now, your just playing semantics, a mistake and an error essentially mean the same thing.


I flipped out in a more moderated way during this attack too.
Oh really? So this is why you have posted bullshit arguments around and relative to their type of thinking, and have blindly, and fervently defended them, and consider them revolutionary, and progressive? Please, you did not flip out, as you would have, had this been any other sect.


But this is no reason for me to denounce them, and yes that is beceause they are communists and in my opinion still progressive.

It isn&#39;t about this issue alone, again I direct you to the information provided by Severin, thus the information provided coupled with this proves they are not progressive and should therefore be denounced.


If that was the case i would have brought up much stronger points in defence of this homophobia. Really, if these were my points i would do further study cause they are way too weak to defend this point of view.

You have posted arguments relative to this, and have made strong apologetic arguments defending and supporting the CPRF, was I directly accusing you of this? No, however this debate has lead me to wonder.


Cause arguments COULD be made in defence of this, you can not rationally deny that...

No, there can not, don&#39;t try to claim rational thought when it isn&#39;t present, all arguments presented have been based on nothing, are weak, and generally have been ripped apart by me and others, hence no arguments or defense can be made for these actions and beliefs, therefore I and others can rationally deny that there is no empirical or tangible arguments, or any argument at all for that matter that could be made for the CPRF.


No, beceause you were saying that marxism is pro gay-rights while Marx himself was against gay-rights.

Marxism, though based on the thoughts of Marx is not dogmatically linked to every little word uttered by Marx, as if Marxism was a religion, it can be changed, revaluated, while still following within the general paradigm of Marxism, as is the case with gay rights, this issue has been revaluated by ALL modern Marxists and Communists, hence why all true revolutionary Marxist/Communist organizations are pro-gay rights.


That might be beceause you are forcing me into a position where i have to explain their point of view in order to defend them as a progresive organization&#33;

I am not forcing you into anything, infact if you so desired you could just not view this thread and forget about it, however you CHOSE to engage in this debate and defend the CPRF and their arguments, you CHOSE to label them as progressive, and other such names that don&#39;t apply to them, and you CHOSE to try to explain "their," view, therefore I did nothing.


but there again is no reason to do away with them&#33;

Have you not read any of the arugments made by me and others?


Of course gay-rights are a part of more eqaulity and this is lacking with the CPRF but that does not mean they do not overall speaking support eqaulity&#33;

There is only one type of equality, and to say that equality can exist without full equality for homosexuality, is a vain phantom, and is not equality in any sense, only pure equality, can produce pure equality, there can be no compromise, as long as ethnic groups, women, homosexual, indigenous people, or any other such group is oppressed there is no equality, hence the CPRF does not support equality.


That is not a fact but an opinion.

No, it was a fact, that a sexual preference does not magically validate, or change what you are saying, or make what you are saying right.


Though in my country the rulling class has a lot of gays in it.

Big fucking deal, this matters why? The us government has a black women in on of the highest offices in the country, and has also native american, asian, and black men and women in government positions, so again I ask why does this fucking matter?


Well, actually womyn and blacks are still economically suppressed which is not the case with homosexuals who are only societally oppressed. Of course this is not a good thing, but considering the fact that it is not proven that being gay is something you are born with.

Gay workers face the same relative struggles, as do black and women workers, and are in some cases interconnected with the other two, so homosexuals are both societal oppressed and oppressed in the work arena, and again homosexuality has been proven to be natural, see above.


No, therefore it is a freedom one can be granted or not. See, again i will say just beceause workers are homosexual too does not make it merely proletarian

Bullshit, that is like saying just because there are black workers does make it a proletarian struggle, or just because their are women workers, doesn&#39;t make women struggles proletarian, they are all interconnected and overlap, hence yet fucking again they are all one singular struggle.


Only, the rulling class counts just as much homosexuals as the proletariat. Making them just as divided, no?

that had absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, separating workers in to sexuality centered categories, and allowing one groups more rights and more freedom to express themselves than the other thus creates segregation, and division among the working class, just because you are obsessed with the idea of gay bourgeoisie doesn&#39;t make any difference, we are talking about proletarian matters here, and working class unity and solidarity, hence gay bourgeoisie has nothing to do with the discussion.


So, beceause there are black and womyn workers. Gay-rights are proletarian?
riiiiiiiiiiight...

So this is your strategy eh? Ignore the argument, and state non-sequitur arguments, is that it? No, I was not saying because there are black and women workers gay rights are proletarian, I said that they are all priorities because you stated the following;


It is not a class-issue and should therefore have no priority&#33;

Also, what about black gay men? By denying them gay rights you are thus oppressing them, or what about lesbian women, same thing, do you not see how they are all connected?


4. Gay-rights

Reactionary dumbass.


Sure, give me an example...
Che Guevara or whatever wont count, eh...

Mahkno, Lenin, Bakunin, Mao, Kropotkin, Luxembourg, Marx, Engels, Goldman, Trotsky, just to name a few, all of them have done more for the revolution, than the CPRF.


And why do you think so?

Already explained this, and I am to tired and annoyed to reiterate myself yet again.


You are forcing me in a position whereas i have to justify what they have done, beceause i still support this organization as being progressive

I am not forcing you to do anything, this is all because of your choice, blame yourself, and see above argument for this claim.


Nazi&#39;s generally support green energy and animal-rights too. &#39;They do it so it must be wrong&#39;is a ridicolous argument.
It was not good, but it shouldnt be taken to such an extreme either&#33;

Just because you saw one website, where some nazi fools, supported green energy and animal rights, doesn&#39;t mean the vast majority of nazis do, or are concerned with said topics, and the whole, "if they do it we can&#39;t," argument wasn&#39;t my argument, my argument was that this type of behavior is seen in fascists and nazis, so if we don&#39;t tolerate it from them, we shouldn&#39;t tolerate from the CPRF, and apologizing for them, is like apologizing for the same actions of the nazi and fascist scum, saying there is rational reasons why they did this and why they are progressive, is like saying the same thing for the nazis and fascists.


No, theres more factors then just ones household. Again this does not contradict the bi-sexuality theory, so i do not see anything as disproven.

I know, I am taking into account both society and household which the house hold is one of the main centers of memetic engineering and indoctrination, and as for the bi-sexual is inherent see above for refutation.

[вор в законе]

The Russian Communist Party has done far more tactical mistakes than this. During the late 90s and after the fall of Yeltsin they really had the chance to take over but due to tactical mistakes they failed. To be honest, they have no easy task. Whatever the case is, the admittedly - in &#39;Western standards&#39; - conservative Communist Party of Russia, is far more progressive than most Russian political organizations.

As Marxists, we should remember that the various aspects of human society can not be separately treated, but must be viewed as an interrelated whole. Marx & and Engels grew in a conservative Prussian society and even they were influenced by the prevailing ideas/prejudices of the society. Russia is, by our standards, a conservative society and it is thus logical that their Communist Party will also adopt conservative tendencies on issues of this nature. However if this attack was supported by the official party line then it can not be justified whatsoever.

[Vargha Poralli]

Zeruzo :

For fucks sake stop defending CPRF or do it without dragging Marx,Engels in to it.As one of your kind A.J posted in this same thread why do you care so much about "Revisionist" CPRF ?

Cryotank Screams

Knowledge about Homosexuality is not great during the time of Marx and Engels.Even masturbation was a serious crime at that time. So for the fucks sake don&#39;t expect people to be stand out of their times.

[Zeruzo]

For fucks sake stop defending CPRF or do it without dragging Marx,Engels in to it.As one of your kind A.J posted in this same thread why do you care so much about "Revisionist" CPRF ?

Beceause they are still progressive. I defend Noam chomsky, Anarchists and Cuba (note that the last in this list has a long history if gay persecutions, and that there were homophobe Anarchists whom i would have still overall speaking defended). And i no i am not leaving Marx and Engels out beceause i think that if you can tolerate it from these individuals you should be capable of tolerating it from the CPRF too.



hat tangible and empirical proof do you have of this? From what I have read this theory is based on false assertions, outdated, shoddy, and false scientific "findings," however the theory/fact that homosexuality is natural, has substantial scientific evidence to back this up, along with other arguments in other arenas, see below books for more information;

I can give you books, wont prove my point. Since it is a theory, and as long as it has not been proven that homosexuality is something you are born with i do not see it as being eqaul to other struggles.

I have no time to make any further reply. So i will do that later.



Homosexual animals also form bonds with their same-sex partner,

And that is not possible if they would be bi-sexual?


Males form homosexual bonds when there is a surplus of males, but females do not do so when they are in surplus.

That could be explained through the biological make up...

But anyway that article does not prove much. It merely states that it differs per specie.
You have jet to prove which category human beings fall into.



This is pure idiocy, everyone is not female within the womb,

Yes you are, the fact that your genes already know what you are going to be does not change the fact that every single individual is female in the womb. Never wondered why doctors dont know whether its a boy or a girl after a couple of months?



The article doesn&#39;t prove anything, really because homosexuality alluded Freud and to which I feel on this subject he was wrong, and that his wrong assertions where based on shoddy and false scientific research during the period in which he lived, therefore all theories deriving from this are thus as wrong as his assertion.

Ok, so &#39;you feel that&#39;?
Therefore it is not proven whether or not you are born homosexual, while it is proven you are born either male or female, black or white. Making me capable of forgiving the CPRF in their ignorance.



No, material conditions would lead the homosexual to hide and or suppress his sexuality, this however does not make him a heterosexual, it means he is just a repressed homosexual, because regardless of "reversing," techniques, you can&#39;t reshape, and brainwash yourself to another sexual preference, it is simply impossible, therefore it is only logical to assume that material conditions do not switch or alter one&#39;s sexuality.

Eventually you will reach a point where it will be difficult to switch back, if the bi-sexuality theory is correct.



Just because you say it isn&#39;t fact doesn&#39;t mean, "poof magic magic," it&#39;s true, and see information above,

No, you and others assume its true.


and I don&#39;t care in which culture or time it is in, it is still not a progressive stance in any context, I don&#39;t care what era, culture, region, or such that is being under analysis, there is absolutely, positively NO EXCUSE, for this type of behavior, none, zip, nada; it isn&#39;t progressive.

That is a ridicolous and utopian thing to say. Actually its even stupid, i hope you wrote that down when you were angry or mentally unstable for some other reason, beceause otherwise i will start to doubt your ability to reasoning.



Also, is there any real proof that modern day russia qualifies as a third world country? I mean comparing it to other confirmed third world countries it seems a lot better off.

Culturally, though economically they are getting close.



Don&#39;t try to pull this shit, scumfront, and revleft are by no means comparable, there is no material or tangible proof for the their idiocy, whereas what I am saying is based on science, psychology, sociology, and other such studies, and provides empirical proof for our assertions, thus myself and others, are not comparable to the scumfront crowd, so in our case, this would generally mean we make sense, and are thus right, and this no means blind agreement, we all stated our opinions on and by their own weight, and did not rely on one another.

Leftists have a general tendency to support gay-rights, and this message board is full of CPRF haters anyway. Making the CPRF a very easy target.



It&#39;s not just this position, see information provided by Severin.

Yes, i have read it. If he is capable of providing any evidence with these claims i will withdraw my support for the CPRF.



Then you are absolutely bat shit crazy and fucking retarded; what are you even basing this on? Is this some kind of weird form of satire? Are you even serious?

[Vargha Poralli]

Beceause they are still progressive.

Really ? :huh: . IF you don&#39;t mind elaborate how ?


And i no i am not leaving Marx and Engels out beceause i think that if you can tolerate it from these individuals you should be capable of tolerating it from the CPRF too.

Seriously please use your brain. This is what i have said to Cryotank Screams.


Knowledge about Homosexuality is not great during the time of Marx and Engels.Even masturbation was a serious crime at that time. So for the fucks sake don&#39;t expect people to be stand out of their times.

So don&#39;t put Marx and Engels on Par with CPRF. CPRF is just an animated corpse of CPSU.There is nothing progressive about it. If CPRF can&#39;t rise above the Homophobia of Russian Masses then it is no way a progressive party. It is just another dustbin of POWER-HUNGRY bastards.

[Cryotank Screams]

Cryotank Screams

Knowledge about Homosexuality is not great during the time of Marx and Engels.Even masturbation was a serious crime at that time. So for the fucks sake don&#39;t expect people to be stand out of their times.

Like I said before I don&#39;t care what time, era, culture, or region is being analyzed this type of behavior is completely unacceptable, I mean for example the native americans were tolerant of homosexuality up until the colonialism/imperialism invaded and destroyed the culture, and also considering that Marx and Engels both analyzed and studied native american cultures this should have been apparent to them, and also take into account that they admired some aspects of the culture, so why not homosexuality?

Also near/during the time of Marx and Engels there was a popular gay activists and popular gay writers and scientists, such as Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs, Magnus Hirschfeld, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, Heinrich Hössli, Benedikt Friedländer, and many others who wrote pro-gay essays and such, during and near the time of Marx and Engels, in germany.

Therefore I say that Marx and Engels were not these perfect little angels, homosexuality wasn&#39;t an accepted thing in german culture, but still they did have some access to pro-homosexuality works, analysis, and people, and even regardless of this I say that even if this wasn&#39;t the case Marx and Engels shouldn&#39;t be excused from criticism on this subject, I mean can you honestly excuse them calling homosexuality a "bourgeoisie decadent excess,"?

No, They were wrong, they made an error, though they had few pro-homosexuality literature, it was still somewhat available, and they should not be excused from criticism on this subject.


I can give you books, wont prove my point. Since it is a theory, and as long as it has not been proven that homosexuality is something you are born with i do not see it as being eqaul to other struggles.

I have no time to make any further reply. So i will do that later.

Read the books I have listed, and information provided, and it will become quite clear that homosexuality is a natural thing, and not something you choose to be, I mean why do you think homosexuals of the past lived in absolute agony and loneliness, because they chose to be gay? Honestly, if it were a choice I guarantee you that hardly any one of the past, and arguably today would choose to be homosexual, if you look at society both past and present and their treatment of homosexuality, it remains quite clear, people wouldn&#39;t endure torture, be burned at the stake, killed, persecuted, oppressed, live in agonizing loneliness all for a mere choice.

So, the evidence for it being natural is overwhelming, and really, why would you not see it as equal? Set aside my arguments and proof, and take Severin&#39;s position, I ask again why? Why would you allow oppression to occur, and oppression that expands and overlaps with other people&#39;s struggles?


And that is not possible if they would be bi-sexual?

Bi-sexual animals in nature, have been seen as being attracted and fornicate with both of the sexes within the respected species, whereas the animals in question, proved upon observation to be exclusively homosexual, and make exclusively homosexual bonds, thus they are homosexual and not bi-sexual.


That could be explained through the biological make up...

But anyway that article does not prove much. It merely states that it differs per specie. You have jet to prove which category human beings fall into.

The article was meant to be a brief introduction, not a long drawn out analysis, that is what the previously listed books were for, and humans fall into the primate category of course, which to my memory, homosexuality in primates was addressed in the article, such as the japanese macaques, and also human animal homosexuality was briefly talked about in the article.


Yes you are, the fact that your genes already know what you are going to be does not change the fact that every single individual is female in the womb. Never wondered why doctors dont know whether its a boy or a girl after a couple of months?

Are you seriously continuing with this? Not only are human sexes genetically different do to X and Y chromosomes, females and males also contain different sexual organs from one another, and thus that area of the human anatomy is different, for example foetus in the womb don&#39;t have female reproductive organs, then magically have male reproductive organs, and males and females have slightly different bone structures which is evident in how archaeologists identify corpses, mummies, and such, therefore taking all these genetic information into account it can be concluded that just because of shoddy medical ultra-sound equipment, and the lack of distinguishing genitals due to this shoddy equipment, doesn&#39;t mean everyone is female, till the feotus becomes decidedly male, from a genetic standpoint you are male or female regardless of whether or not ultra-sound can accurately tell what you are.

Also ultra-sounds are not fully advanced so thus, using the lack of distinguishing genitals as proof that we are females, and then become males, means nothing.


Ok, so &#39;you feel that&#39;?
Therefore it is not proven whether or not you are born homosexual, while it is proven you are born either male or female, black or white. Making me capable of forgiving the CPRF in their ignorance.

Semantic argument, it&#39;s not only that I feel, but also that other feel as well, I am not the only one asserting that Freud didn&#39;t understand homosexuality, and it alluded him, and that all arguments for his position that come after are false, and are ignoring all other information that I have provided? Don&#39;t try to be evasive and dismiss the argument all because as a figure of speech I said "I feel," and it is basically proven that when you grow up and mature, you are naturally attracted to the people of the opposite sex, the same sex, or both, hence sexuality, it&#39;s purely a natural attraction, thus making you ignorantly supporting homophobic counter-revolutionaries.


Eventually you will reach a point where it will be difficult to switch back, if the bi-sexuality theory is correct.

You obviously have not talked to many homosexuals about when they "knew," have you? I and they will tell you that, due to societal cultures a lot of homosexuals try to like the opposite sex, but can&#39;t no matter what they do, and are just unexplainably, and naturally attracted to the same sex, there is no switching, or reversing, or any other non-sense at all, it&#39;s simply a matter of being or not being, you either are or your not, there is no reaching some fictional "point of no return."


No, you and others assume its true.

We assume nothing, we conclude and know this by facts, data, observation and analysis.


That is a ridicolous and utopian thing to say. Actually its even stupid, i hope you wrote that down when you were angry or mentally unstable for some other reason, beceause otherwise i will start to doubt your ability to reasoning.

It&#39;s not utopian, infact societies like I have said before in native american tribes accepted homosexuality, and such, but really my point is that no matter what time, this behavior is unacceptable, no matter who commits it, when they commit it, wherever they commit it.

I mean that is like saying capitalism is ok because people didn&#39;t know better, or feudalism, or that racism and sexism, is ok because people didn&#39;t know better, these arguments to me are not only flat out horseshit, but all apologetics, and escape arguments, they fact is, it is wrong, period, no excuses, it is wrong and archaic, and should be denounced wherever it takes place, every time it takes place.

It&#39;s not stupid at all, and don&#39;t try to try to insult me personally, as a means to evade posting an actual argument, I am nothing that you describe, my reasoning is quite rational, so don&#39;t construct baseless insults, as a means of evading and slander.

Maybe I shouldn’t oppose injustice, oppression, persecution, wherever it’s present, :rolleyes:.


Culturally

In this day and age this kind of backwardness, in a society such as russia is unacceptable, and also do the fact of how much information is no available.


Leftists have a general tendency to support gay-rights, and this message board is full of CPRF haters anyway. Making the CPRF a very easy target.

Oh please, we don&#39;t hate the CPRF for no reason, we hate them for what they believe and do, we oppose them for there deeds and actions and such, CPRF is not an easy target for mere sectarianism, they are counter-revolutionaries, and are denounced as such, and also Leftists support gay-rights, because it a Leftist stance, and belief, ;) .

[OneBrickOneVoice]

They did against gays. The exact reasons of this are unknown to me, you should ask that to someone else

Homophobia was and is a big issue in the international communist and anarchist movement. Anarchists in Spain considered themselves morally superior to gays for example. Communist Parties that take the homophobic platform usually argue that it is a social phenonomenon that will go away when we reach communism. The RCP held such a line but at the same time were "against all forms of oppression" and openly allowed gays who were communist into the party and the youth brigades. They eventually changed this line as have many parties.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14, 2007 12:46 am
As Marxists, we should remember that the various aspects of human society can not be separately treated, but must be viewed as an interrelated whole.
And yet somehow we&#39;re supposed to pretend the Russian CP&#39;s anti-gay line is an anomaly with no relationship to its overall political character?


Marx & and Engels grew in a conservative Prussian society and even they were influenced by the prevailing ideas/prejudices of the society. Russia is, by our standards, a conservative society and it is thus logical that their Communist Party will also adopt conservative tendencies on issues of this nature.

Hello, there has been some progress since the 19th century, including in Russia. 90 years ago the Bolsheviks had a better attitude towards homosexuality than the Russian CP does today.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Severian
And yet somehow we&#39;re supposed to pretend the Russian CP&#39;s anti-gay line is an anomaly with no relationship to its overall political character?

No, you & comrade Severian are free to believe whatever you want. I have not followed much the incident. If attacking homosexuals is an official party policy, then certainly there is much more than an anomaly.



Hello, there has been some progress since the 19th century, including in Russia. 90 years ago the Bolsheviks had a better attitude towards homosexuality than the Russian CP does today.

The Bolsheviks had a better attitude towards homosexuals on paper only. As for the fact that many years have passed since Marx&#39;s era I would like to remind you that it was not long ago that homosexuals faced discrimination in the civilized &#39;West&#39; and while most Western countries have accepted homosexuals on paper only there still are large conservative portions within the societies which don&#39;t cope with the jurisdiction and abuse them.

I don&#39;t understand why most people here don&#39;t simply say that: &#39;I don&#39;t believe that the Russian Communist Part can lead to Socialism., instead of going round and round. Because I don&#39;t believe that they can do that either. I just see them as a lesser evil.

[Zeruzo]

and also considering that Marx and Engels both analyzed and studied native American cultures this should have been apparent to them, and also take into account that they admired some aspects of the culture, so why not homosexuality?

Because they were not raised in such a culture, making it a far different experience for them.



Also near/during the time of Marx and Engels there was a popular gay activists and popular gay writers and scientists, such as Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs, Magnus Hirschfeld, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, Heinrich Hössli, Benedikt Friedländer, and many others who wrote pro-gay essays and such, during and near the time of Marx and Engels, in Germany.

A lot of individuals near me are capitalists, does not make me a capitalist. The strongest and prevailing of those opinions is still the most influential. Keep in mind Marx and Engels were mere humans so it IS possible for them to not have read those pro-gay essays (or to disagree with it of course).


I mean can you honestly excuse them calling homosexuality a "bourgeoisie decadent excess,"?

Yes, for the reasons as stated above. They were not perfect and i don&#39;t expect them to be perfect. Of course it is not a point of view i support, but i wont do away with them just for this opinion.



Read the books I have listed, and information provided, and it will become quite clear that homosexuality is a natural thing

It might change my opinion, so i will read the book. It will not however change my opinion on anti-gay comrades, because they might not have this information, they might be raised in a society whereas it is accepted as being normal, etc... etc... I will not expect people to be perfect. It is a mistake and should be criticized but i wont do away with them. Because they might still be of opinion that being homosexual is not something you are born with.


I mean why do you think homosexuals of the past lived in absolute agony and loneliness, because they chose to be gay?

Because material conditions made them homosexual. I have visited a family once where all members were either female, homosexual or bi-sexual. One of the male kids there started to act really female because he did not know much different then everybody being either gay or female (his dad was homosexual too).
This is quite an extreme example and there could be other conditions driving people towards homosexuality, but anyway i will read your provided literature before arguing this point any further.



Are you seriously continuing with this? Not only are human sexes genetically different do to X and Y chromosomes, females and males also contain different sexual organs from one another, and thus that area of the human anatomy is different, for example foetus in the womb don&#39;t have female reproductive organs,

It might sound strange but a penis is an outgrown vagina. There is a reason they can not say why a child is either a boy or a girl in the first stages of pregnancy.


and males and females have slightly different bone structures which is evident in how archaeologists identify corpses,

If an archaeologist find a 2 months old fetus and can tell me whether or not it is a boy or a girl, i will start distrusting this guy cause he would know jack shit about his profession.
This bone structure btw changes over time both in the womb and during puberty.


from a genetic standpoint you are male or female regardless of whether or not ultra-sound can accurately tell what you are.

From a genetic standpoint i would agree, but i am speaking from a biological point of view. Why are we actually arguing this point?



Also ultra-sounds are not fully advanced so thus, using the lack of distinguishing genitals as proof that we are females, and then become males, means nothing.


The only way to determine whether or not the fetus is a female or male before a certain set of time is DNA.



You obviously have not talked to many homosexuals about when they "knew," have you?

I have talked to 4 homosexuals about the subject. Actually it was a homosexual that introduced me to the &#39;everyone is bi-sexual at birth&#39;-theory.


I and they will tell you that, due to societal cultures a lot of homosexuals try to like the opposite sex, but can&#39;t no matter what they do, and are just unexplainable, and naturally attracted to the same sex, there is no switching, or reversing, or any other non-sense at all, it&#39;s simply a matter of being or not being, you either are or your not, there is no reaching some fictional "point of no return."

Perhaps, i have not talked this in-depth with a homosexual about it (as in asking whether they want/can return to their heterosexuality).



We assume nothing, we conclude and know this by facts, data, observation and analysis.

You conclude, but it is still a mere assumption for it is no proven fact.



It&#39;s not Utopian, in fact societies like I have said before in native American tribes accepted homosexuality, and such, but really my point is that no matter what time, this behavior is unacceptable, no matter who commits it, when they commit it, wherever they commit it.

See, different society, different culture, and different values&#33;



I mean that is like saying capitalism is ok because people didn&#39;t know better, or feudalism, or that racism and sexism, is ok because people didn&#39;t know better, these arguments to me are not only flat out horse shit, but all apologetics, and escape arguments, they fact is, it is wrong, period, no excuses, it is wrong and archaic, and should be denounced wherever it takes place, every time it takes place.

Actually, capitalism is a necessary step in the evolution of mankind. So yes i can forgive those who introduced capitalism. In fact i sheer at them for destroying the old feudal system and creating a more just and free society.
I can forgive all racists and sexists of the future because they did not know better. My grandparents great-grandparents were probably racist. And i can forgive them for that, it is not just but i can forgive them.



It&#39;s not stupid at all, and don&#39;t try to try to insult me personally, as a means to evade posting an actual argument, I am nothing that you describe, my reasoning is quite rational, so don&#39;t construct baseless insults, as a means of evading and slander.

I was right at stating that it made no sense. You can not blame people who lived century&#39;s ago for their racism. It was the ruling class of those countries that forced this racism down their troath. And most swallowed it, yes. Not really a odd thing.



In this day and age this kind of backwardness, in a society such as russia is unacceptable, and also do the fact of how much information is no available.

Russia IS backwards.


and also Leftists support gay-rights, because it a Leftist stance, and belief

No, your perception of being a leftist includes gay-rights.