Homosexuality and Marxism

[jacobin1949]

Theres a lot of criticism over parties like the RCP or PLP that were slow to embrace homosexuality and playing devil's advocate: what does homosexuality have to do with Marxism?

Now granted one could say its the same as race. But use of racial hatred goes directly towards dividing the working class, while there isn't any major movement to divide straight gay workers. And no socialist nation in the world ever made homosexuality legal.

Maybe I'm just ignorant on the topic but I don't get the assumption that homosexuality is part of the revleft cause.

[Mujer Libre]

Because queer people are discriminated against because of their sexuality, and the revolutionary left is all about the emancipation of all people, not just heteros?

It's rather simple really. *rolleyes*

[Dr Mindbender]

the modern marxist take on discrimination against homosexuals is the same as its take on racism- that it is reactionary, and divides the working class therefore cannot be tolerated.

Many post revolutionary societies were slow to adopt gay rights because their of their former backward rural traditions, especially in maoist china. They [incorrectly] believed homosexuality was a product of 'western decadence'.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:20 pm
Now granted one could say its the same as race. But use of racial hatred goes directly towards dividing the working class, while there isn't any major movement to divide straight gay workers.
lolwut? Every division between the "norm" (straight white men) and the other is a division of the working class.


And no socialist nation in the world ever made homosexuality legal.

Yeah, so? That's just another criticism that can be levelled at them.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:20 pm
Theres a lot of criticism over parties like the RCP or PLP that were slow to embrace homosexuality and playing devil's advocate: what does homosexuality have to do with Marxism?

Well, Marxism is about the liberation of the working class, and homophobia acts as an artificial barrier between workers, and the broader idea of liberation.

The fact is that homosexual acts have literally no detrimental impact on anything. And so homophobia is also irrational and unscientific, both charicteristics marxism is opposed to.

Homosexuality isn't a cause, it's a lifestyle choice. But combating superstious hate and totaly anti-scientific bullshit is certainly part of the progression of humanity, and something we should be for.

[Demogorgon]

Well such Marxist concepts as Human emancipation and opposing divisions in the working class are hardly conducive to homophobia, are they?

But come on, you hardly have to be a Marxist to see why discriminating against gays is wrong.

[Marsella]

Maybe I'm just ignorant on the topic but I don't get the assumption that homosexuality is part of the revleft cause.

I don't think homosexuality is part of the revolutionary cause - Stormfront would have a day trip with that!

But attacking outdated morality is.

I think communists/anarchists oppose it for two reasons:

1. Homophobia is mingled with religious nonsense. It seems a logical step when attacking religion to attack the baseless bigotry on which it stands. That includes patriarchal values, homophobia, sexual morality etc.

2. There is nothing wrong or right with homosexuality - sexual preference is an individuals matter. Thus, it is not for a community to make moral decisions on that preference.

That being said, I have not come across anything which Marx wrote about homosexuality - but he did live in the 1800s...


Homosexuality isn't a cause, it's a lifestyle choice.

What? I don't think its a lifestyle choice...maybe I have misunderstood you - do you mean it is simply a personal 'choice?'

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 17, 2007 03:00 pm
Homosexuality isn't a cause, it's a lifestyle choice.
At this point, of all the members on Revleft, I'm positive only that YOU are straight. A homosexual, who has to deal with homosexuality, knows different.

[TC]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 17, 2007 02:55 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 17, 2007 02:55 pm)

And no socialist nation in the world ever made homosexuality legal.

Yeah, so? That's just another criticism that can be levelled at them. [/b]
Well, it would be, if it was true, but its not, its a reactionary lie that jacobin1949 and now you are propagating.

Homosexuality is and was legal in every socialist state. Its true that the Soviet Union under Stalin criminalized homosexuality but it was later repealed by the Soviet government, and the Soviet Union was the *FIRST* state to legalize homosexuality, at the time that Stalin's government banned it it was illegal across the capitalist world, remember people were arrested for being gay in AMERICA under anti-sodomy laws until in 2003!!

All remaining countries claiming to be socialist or in the process of building socialism, Cuba, Venezuela, China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Laos, Vietnam, etc, have no laws against homosexuality and the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact countries repealed all laws against homosexuality well before they collapsed.

The leadership of the Cuban Communist Party even supports gay marriage and plans to legislate accordingly (the delay in doing so is for technical reasons because it requires a constitutional change, not for political reason), and the Cuban government has frequently produced pro-gay propaganda films and literature and even has a state funded institute to advocate for gay people.

So leave the anti-Communist slander and find one of the many other threads where this has been discussed.


William
Homosexuality isn't a cause, it's a lifestyle choice.

I agree that homosexuality isn't a cause, but its a sexual orientation, a distinct preference for one gender over the other that determines what types of sexual and romantic relationships someone has any desire to have. You don't "choose" what you *want*, people's desires dictate their choices not the other way around.

You might say that being in a relationship with someone of the same sex is a "lifestyle choice" (one that makes a lot of sense if you're gay and not a lot if you're straight :-p) but not that homosexuality is.

[Marsella]

Sodomy was in fact decriminalised in China in 1997.

And homosexuality was removed from a recognised list of mental illnesses in 2001.

Same sex marriage is still forbidden. Not that I am one to speak for marriage...

That is not to mention the abuse they faced under the Cultural Revolution and still today from police and moralist public authorities.

However, all this ignores the point that laws do not always reflect the values of people - they can be more progressive or more backwards - or just right. That said, they are usually a good indication...

What we should be looking for is if the attitudes of the population in 'socialist' countries.

Overall, I would rather be in Sweden or some other northern European country than North Korea, China, or the former USSR.

Edit: It also should be noted that capitalism has an interest in removing barriers between race, sex, sexual preference: they want as unlimited a workforce as possible. However, conservative petty-bourgeoisie representatives disagree for obvious reasons.

[Demogorgon]

A note some people may find of interest, sayign the Soviet Union was the first country to legalise Homosexuality isn't true. France and Japan both did so while Russia was still under the Tsars.

[jacobin1949]

Godhatesfags actually wanted to plan a trip to Cuba in support of the anti-gay laws on the books and China still lists homosexuality as a mental disorder.

And looking at most of the 20th century I would say capitalist propaganda would be more effective claiming that socialists SUPPORTED homosexuality. According to MIM thats how the police agents broke up the Black Panthers.

[TC]

Originally posted by jacobin1949
Godhatesfags actually wanted to plan a trip to Cuba in support of the anti-gay laws on the books and China still lists homosexuality as a mental disorder.

You're *actually* just making that up or repeating rumours you've heard from other anti-communists:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz...com&btnG=Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1B2GGGL_enGB206GB206&as_qdr=all&q=cuba+site%3Awww.godhatesfags.com&btnG=Search)

God hates fags.com contains no references to Cuba

Even if it were true it would only suggest that Phelps bought the same anti-communist propaganda that you have.

In fact the only reference to "communism" or "communist" on the site is:

"If America was overrun by a Chinese communist horde of gay soldiers, would you be thankful for American soldiers willing to give their lives to protect the likes of you? I guess not"



And looking at most of the 20th century I would say capitalist propaganda would be more effective claiming that socialists SUPPORTED homosexuality.

Not really, the imperialist line on Communism which you have adopted has always been that Communists hate freedom and have repressive social practices. They use this argument not with regard to the social conservatives who also hate freedom but with liberals so as to drive the left wing of capitalism away from a soft line on socialism.

Its part of the attempt to equate Communism (and again, I use a capital "C" here referring to the ideology of workers states so don't blabber about how theres never been "communism") with Fascism which they've been trying at since WWII.

[Neutrino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:20 pm
Maybe I'm just ignorant on the topic but I don't get the assumption that homosexuality is part of the revleft cause.

Well, there's no real uniform consensus. Most of the time leftist sentiment (or any sentiment, for that matter) is NOT transcendent of one's own culture and societal mores. And it just so happens that most of the world is quite homophobic, notwithstanding its legality. Homosexuality is *legal* in many, if not most, of such countries. But that doesn't mean the societal atmosphere is better than in those countries that prescribe capital punishment for homosexuality.

Now, keeping that in mind, it would be fallacious to attribute this homophobia and heteronormativity to leftism -- it is rather the semblance of local cultures on local leftist sentiment.


Anyway, good reading material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

[Ismail]

Homosexuality in Albania in 1989. (http://www.allianceml.com/Albania/ALBANIANLIFE/No441989.htm)

It seems they basically viewed it as against womens rights, and quoted Engels:


Originally posted by F. Engels: 'The Origin of the [email protected] Private Property and the State'; London; 1972; p. 128.
This degradation of the woman was avenged on the men and degraded them also till they fell into the abominable practice of sodomy.Considering that Hoxha said that those who opposed womens rights should be "thrown into the fire" and various tribal leaders were arrested or killed due to this issue, being against womens rights clearly wasn't a minor offense. Since Hoxha died in 1985 (and didn't have much power since 1982) it seems Alia didn't particularly care about changing this policy either.

[Intelligitimate]

There are some Marxists who are still very anti-homosexuality. Not that I support their arguments or anything, as I think they take Marx and Engels' remarks about a pedophile and Greek pedophilia out of context, but here is a link to their stuff nonetheless:

http://www.neue-einheit.com/english/homoeng.htm

[TC]

I specified warsaw pact countries because Albania and Romania were clearly messed up on all sorts of social levels and at least Romania could not have been considered socialist even by those who support the soviet camp as socialist.

[Herman]

Seeing that countries such as the Soviet Union became conservative during the 30's in regards to women's rights and homosexuality, I can safely say that Eastern Europe was certainly not progressive in that sense.

Every society has had difficulties in coming with terms with homosexuality. Be it religious or cultural (or both) reasons, the fact is that socialists in the beginning of the 20th century did not see homosexuality as we do nowadays. It was something which many people didn't understand, especially when socialists read Darwin and theory of natural selection. How could it be natural to like other men when they cannot reproduce? So many thought this way. Even Lenin, despite his many progressive ideas, had trouble agreeing with the way Russian youth in the 20's were taking the idea of "free love" and being far more open about sexuality and sexual practice (I must congratulate Alexandra Kollontai for her many valuable contributions to this), something similar to what happened in Spain during the civil war in the republican and anarchist side.


Homosexuality isn't a cause, it's a lifestyle choice.

No one chooses to be a "homosexual". I cannot suddenly for example become gay and start having sex with men and expect to like it. It's something natural.. biological which in time one discovers.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:19 pm
Theres a lot of criticism over parties like the RCP or PLP that were slow to embrace homosexuality and playing devil's advocate: what does homosexuality have to do with Marxism?

Now granted one could say its the same as race. But use of racial hatred goes directly towards dividing the working class, while there isn't any major movement to divide straight gay workers. And no socialist nation in the world ever made homosexuality legal.

Maybe I'm just ignorant on the topic but I don't get the assumption that homosexuality is part of the revleft cause.
Marxism, as a following of Marx's words, allows for only a few types of working discrimination - against the ruling class, for the working class, and against oppression and homosexuality.

I don't have the quote, but either Marx or Engels were said to have claimed that Homosexuality would not exist in a communist society. I am guessing that they were simply playing on the erroneous assumption at the time that non - heterosexual sex was unnatural and purely a result of psychological neuroses, but I think its safe to say that in this age where such assertions ahve been proven false, they would probably not support such discrimination since the basic tenets of Marxism, as I see them, are totally at odds with such claims.

Marxism, described as fluid ideology based on Marx's assertions, is fully for the emancipation of homosexuals from unjust discrimination. However, I think the term "Marxism" is disingenuous when described that way.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:19 pm
the Soviet Union was the *FIRST* state to legalize homosexuality, at the time that Stalin's government banned it it was illegal across the capitalist world, remember people were arrested for being gay in AMERICA under anti-sodomy laws until in 2003!!
I'm pretty sure pre-Nazi Germany was the first state to legalize homosexuality, long before the USSR came into existence.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 08, 2007 03:14 pm--> (counterblast @ December 08, 2007 03:14 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:19 pm
the Soviet Union was the *FIRST* state to legalize homosexuality, at the time that Stalin's government banned it it was illegal across the capitalist world, remember people were arrested for being gay in AMERICA under anti-sodomy laws until in 2003!!
I'm pretty sure pre-Nazi Germany was the first state to legalize homosexuality, long before the USSR came into existence. [/b]
Take it for what it's worth, but Wikipedia says France was:
* 1791 - France decriminalizes sexual acts between men.
* 1795 - Belgium, Luxembourg, and Tuscany decriminalize homosexual acts.
* 1811 - The Netherlands decriminalizes homosexual acts.
* 1813 - Bavaria decriminalizes sexual acts between men.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history)

1912 - Homosexuality legalized in Germany.

But it seems Paragraph 175 was only repealed in 1994.

Paragraph 175 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175)

So it seems that TC was wrong in stating that the Soviet Union was the first state to legalize homosexuality.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Martov+December 08, 2007 06:07 am--> (Martov @ December 08, 2007 06:07 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:14 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 05:19 pm
the Soviet Union was the *FIRST* state to legalize homosexuality, at the time that Stalin's government banned it it was illegal across the capitalist world, remember people were arrested for being gay in AMERICA under anti-sodomy laws until in 2003!!
I'm pretty sure pre-Nazi Germany was the first state to legalize homosexuality, long before the USSR came into existence.
Take it for what it's worth, but Wikipedia says France was:
* 1791 - France decriminalizes sexual acts between men.
* 1795 - Belgium, Luxembourg, and Tuscany decriminalize homosexual acts.
* 1811 - The Netherlands decriminalizes homosexual acts.
* 1813 - Bavaria decriminalizes sexual acts between men.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history)

1912 - Homosexuality legalized in Germany.

But it seems Paragraph 175 was only repealed in 1994.

Paragraph 175 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175)

So it seems that TC was wrong in stating that the Soviet Union was the first state to legalize homosexuality.
[/b]
That's a fascinating read.

Thank you for posting that. 1790? Who would have thought.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

well .. not saying one thing or the other concerning the reasons why Marxists look to homosexual issues ... but here is some of what Marx and Engels said about homosexuals themselves:



From the earliest European homosexual rights movements, activists such as Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld approached the Left for support. During the 1860s, Ulrichs wrote to Karl Marx and sent him a number of books on Uranian (homosexual/transgender) emancipation, and in 1869 Marx passed one of Ulrich's books on to Engels. Engels responded with disgust to Marx in a private letter, lashing out at "pederasts" who are "extremely against nature", and described Ulrichs' platform of homosexual rights as "turning smut into theory". He worried that things would go badly for heterosexuals like himself and Marx should homosexual rights be gained.

Known to both Ulrichs and Marx was the case of Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, an important labor organiser who had been charged with attempting to solicit a teenage boy in a park in 1862. Social democrat leader Ferdinand Lassalle defended Schweitzer on the grounds that while he personally found homosexuality to be dirty, the labor movement needed the leadership of Schweitzer too much to abandon him, and that a person's sexual tastes had "absolutely nothing to do with a man’s political character". Marx, on the other hand, suggested that Engels use this incident to smear Schweitzer: "You must arrange for a few jokes about him to reach Siebel, for him to hawk around to the various papers." However, Schweitzer would go on to become President of the German Labor Union, and the first Social Democrat elected to a parliament in Europe.

Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well," and homosexuality would simply disappear.


just food for thought ....

here is a link to the wikipedia article: Socialism and LGBT Rights (the source of the above passages w/ endnotes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

oh on a side note ...


I'm pretty sure pre-Nazi Germany was the first state to legalize homosexuality, long before the USSR came into existence.

not sure if nazi germany was the first state or what .. but this is just a factually incorrect statement anyway ...

Soviet Union founded: 1922

Weimar Germany (pre-Nazi?) 1919-1933

Nazi's take power in Germany: 1933

meaning that there is pretty much no way Pre-Nazi or Nazi-Germany could have done anything "long before the USSR came in to existence"

besides ... i am pretty sure that Germany's acceptance of homosexuals is a very recent development ...


1912 - Homosexuality legalized in Germany.

not sure where this comes from but i can't find any reference to it except the wikipedia article ... which i assume mean that this is simply a case of false information ...

[Marsella]

From the earliest European homosexual rights movements, activists such as Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld approached the Left for support. During the 1860s, Ulrichs wrote to Karl Marx and sent him a number of books on Uranian (homosexual/transgender) emancipation, and in 1869 Marx passed one of Ulrich's books on to Engels. Engels responded with disgust to Marx in a private letter, lashing out at "pederasts" who are "extremely against nature", and described Ulrichs' platform of homosexual rights as "turning smut into theory". He worried that things would go badly for heterosexuals like himself and Marx should homosexual rights be gained.

Known to both Ulrichs and Marx was the case of Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, an important labor organiser who had been charged with attempting to solicit a teenage boy in a park in 1862. Social democrat leader Ferdinand Lassalle defended Schweitzer on the grounds that while he personally found homosexuality to be dirty, the labor movement needed the leadership of Schweitzer too much to abandon him, and that a person's sexual tastes had "absolutely nothing to do with a man’s political character". Marx, on the other hand, suggested that Engels use this incident to smear Schweitzer: "You must arrange for a few jokes about him to reach Siebel, for him to hawk around to the various papers." However, Schweitzer would go on to become President of the German Labor Union, and the first Social Democrat elected to a parliament in Europe.

Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well," and homosexuality would simply disappear.

Yes that certainly is food for thought.

It once again demonstrates that no-one can fully escape the social prejudices of their time, and that we should always approach matters critically, regardless of who's opinion it is.

That opinion would get you banned from revleft today.


not sure if nazi germany was the first state or what .. but this is just a factually incorrect statement anyway ...

Soviet Union founded: 1922

Weimar Germany (pre-Nazi?) 1919-1933

Nazi's take power in Germany: 1933

meaning that there is pretty much no way Pre-Nazi or Nazi-Germany could have done anything "long before the USSR came in to existence"

besides ... i am pretty sure that Germany's acceptance of homosexuals is a very recent development ...

Here's what wikipedia says:

In 1929, another Reichstag Committee decided to repeal Paragraph 175 with the votes of the Social Democrats, the Communist Party (KPD) and the German Democratic Party (DDP); however, the rise of the Nazi Party prevented the implementation of the repeal. Although modified at various times, the paragraph remained part of German law until 1994.


not sure where this comes from but i can't find any reference to it except the wikipedia article ... which i assume mean that this is simply a case of false information ...

Probably, I did say 'take it for what its worth' :P

Besides, homosexuality was only repealed as a criminal offense in 1994.

The problem with Germany is that it went through a number of governmental types; pre-federation, unified monarchy Germany, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, post WW2 Germany, unified Germany (again!). It makes it particularly difficult to trace the history of the homophobic legislation.

Edit:

Holy crap, this is what Maxim Gorky had to say:

Russian Communist Maxim Gorky infamously remarked in his 1934 essay Proletarian Humanism: "Exterminate homosexuals, and Fascism will disappear."

:o

[Neutrino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:32 am
The problem with Germany is that it went through a number of governmental types; pre-federation, unified monarchy Germany, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, post WW2 Germany, unified Germany (again!). It makes it particularly difficult to trace the history of the homophobic legislation.
Germany is, actually and remarkably, according to statistics in this article, socially, one of the most progressive countries toward homosexuality in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_atti...d_homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Measuring_ attitudes_toward_homosexuality)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:19 pm
Now granted one could say its the same as race. But use of racial hatred goes directly towards dividing the working class, while there isn't any major movement to divide straight gay workers.
It's not quite exactly the same as race, but it is not very different either. Skin colour is very visible, therefore racism is a highly effective tool for dividing workers. Sexuality is less visible - a black worker cannot pretend to be white, but a homosexual worker can pretend to be hetero. Therefore, homophobia is not quite as effective as racism in directly dividing workers (although it is, of course, equally oppressive towards the targeted group).

However, precisely because sexuality can be hidden (whereas race cannot), homophobia can be used to serve a different purpose: sowing fear. The ruling class can use homophobia to instill fear and terror into the working class. Heterosexual workers are told that there is some kind of evil gay conspiracy or "homosexual agenda," and the only way to save themselves from it is to rally around reactionary parties and uphold the status quo at all costs. Meanwhile, gay workers are forced to keep their sexuality hidden by the fear of what might happen to them if it is revealed. Thus straight workers are kept afraid of radical politics, and gay workers are kept afraid of having their sexuality exposed. The goal of the ruling class is to keep both groups too afraid to challenge the status quo.

Racism and homophobia are both used by the ruling class to cause mutual hatred and fear among the workers; the difference is only that racism focuses more on hatred and homophobia focuses more on fear.

[Lynx]

The Nazis legalized homosexuality? What about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ga...d_the_Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gay_men_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocau st)

Edit: Oh, now I see, pre-Nazi Germany.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Edric O+--> (Edric O)The ruling class can use homophobia to instill fear and terror into the working class. Heterosexual workers are told that there is some kind of evil gay conspiracy or "homosexual agenda," and the only way to save themselves from it is to rally around reactionary parties and uphold the status quo at all costs.[/b]

I think this was more of a 20thC thing - certainly no politicians i know (well of this century) utilise homophobic rhetoric of that kind.


Originally posted by Edric [email protected]

Meanwhile, gay workers are forced to keep their sexuality hidden by the fear of what might happen to them if it is revealed.

Firstly, the nature of one's sexuality is not a factor in many workplaces... because beyond banter between workers there just isn't a context where sexuality is discussed or otherwise becomes obvious.

Secondly, 'the closet' is not as full in 2007 as it was even 20 years ago; indeed many gay people are as open about their sexuality at work as any hetero worker... but in many contexts it just doesn't come up either way.


Edric

Thus straight workers are kept afraid of radical politics

I don't think this has been a very effective tactic; heteros have dominated radical politics for centuries! :P

[Dros]

Theres a lot of criticism over parties like the RCP or PLP that were slow to embrace homosexuality and playing devil's advocate: what does homosexuality have to do with Marxism?

To my knowledge, the RCP has always detested and sought to fight homophobia and anti-gay descrimination. They took a line in the 80's which is obviously false that homosexuality would go away under socialism. They no longer take that line nor is it in any real way homophobic. They changed it when it became clear this wasn't the case.

[Marsella]

They no longer take that line nor is it in any real way homophobic.

I disagree.

Stating that homosexuality is somehow a bourgeoisie decadent aspect of capitalism clearly is a homophobic line. As well as being just plain wrong.

Arguing that communism will get rid of it is so too.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:37 am

Theres a lot of criticism over parties like the RCP or PLP that were slow to embrace homosexuality and playing devil's advocate: what does homosexuality have to do with Marxism?

To my knowledge, the RCP has always detested and sought to fight homophobia and anti-gay descrimination. They took a line in the 80's which is obviously false that homosexuality would go away under socialism. They no longer take that line nor is it in any real way homophobic. They changed it when it became clear this wasn't the case.
:blink:

How exactly did they come to this conclusion?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:42 am

I'm pretty sure pre-Nazi Germany was the first state to legalize homosexuality, long before the USSR came into existence.

not sure if nazi germany was the first state or what .. but this is just a factually incorrect statement anyway ...

Soviet Union founded: 1922

Weimar Germany (pre-Nazi?) 1919-1933

Nazi's take power in Germany: 1933

meaning that there is pretty much no way Pre-Nazi or Nazi-Germany could have done anything "long before the USSR came in to existence"
I wasn't referring to Weimar Germany, but rather the post-medieval Germany that was formed, sometime in the 1870s.

[Zurdito]

well the need to encourage heterosexuality relates to reproducing the family unit as core of society and creating new labour, so homosexuals are a threat to the whole morality of the system. there wold be no need for a communal society to be homophobic, as everyone shares all things freely, including sex. gender differences, without private property, should also be hugely less significant than they are today, and I'd imagine trans-genderl people to be greatly less pressed to choose one or the other

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I wasn't referring to Weimar Germany, but rather the post-medieval Germany that was formed, sometime in the 1870s.

well that would be the German Empire which unified the German states in 1871, this is the empire that was founded by Bismark and formed from the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire ... i will be very surprised if this is the empire that legalized homosexuality ... in fact i am almost positive that you are very very wrong on this point ...

while today Germany is one of the more tolerant countries towards homosexuals, Germany for most of its history as a (as a unified state or as part of the Holy Roman Empire) was known for militaristism, conservativism, and authoritarianism ...

the most progressive periods existed under Weimar ... and well today ...

if you knew much about Germany around the period of 1912 you would know that anything claiming that the country was legalizing homosexuality seems outrageously far fetched ...

as an example, here is a quote on the election of the reichstag in 1912:



William II, unlike Bismarck, set aside differences with the Roman Catholic Church and put the government's energy into opposing socialism at all cost. This policy failed when the Social Democrats won a third of the votes in the 1912 elections to the Reichstag, and became the largest political party in Germany. The government remained in the hands of a succession of conservative coalitions supported by right-wing liberals or Catholic clerics and heavily dependent on the Kaiser's favour. The rising militarism that was implemented by Wilhelm II caused many to flee Germany in order to avoid military service. Most fled to the United States.

this does not strike me as the government that would pass laws that legalized homosexuality .... i can say with near total confidence that Germany did not legalize homosexuality in 1912 as stated ...

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:54 am

They no longer take that line nor is it in any real way homophobic.

I disagree.

Stating that homosexuality is somehow a bourgeoisie decadent aspect of capitalism clearly is a homophobic line. As well as being just plain wrong.

Arguing that communism will get rid of it is so too.

Stating that homosexuality is somehow a bourgeoisie decadent aspect of capitalism clearly is a homophobic line. As well as being just plain wrong.

I don't think that was ever there possition. My understanding of it was that homosexuality was the product of class antagonism. I might be wrong as I didn't read the whole paper.

But in any case, everyone knows their former position was wrong. They acknowledge it and have revised it.

[Marsella]

I read a long article linked by SovietPants on the issue, I can't find it at the moment, but you're right in that the RCP has revised its line.

I was questioning your remark that that former RCP stance was not homophobic. Clearly thinking that homosexuality will disappear after the revolution implies a moral stance that homosexuality is somehow 'unnatural' - the result of class antagonisms rather than a particular biological explanation or another social explanation.

Countries like China and Cuba seemed to have supported the idea that homosexuality was something that would eventually wither away.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to hear what some of the member here have to say about what really leads to sexual preference.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by drosera99+December 09, 2007 03:53 pm--> (drosera99 @ December 09, 2007 03:53 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 05:54 am

They no longer take that line nor is it in any real way homophobic.

I disagree.

Stating that homosexuality is somehow a bourgeoisie decadent aspect of capitalism clearly is a homophobic line. As well as being just plain wrong.

Arguing that communism will get rid of it is so too.

Stating that homosexuality is somehow a bourgeoisie decadent aspect of capitalism clearly is a homophobic line. As well as being just plain wrong.

I don't think that was ever there possition. My understanding of it was that homosexuality was the product of class antagonism. I might be wrong as I didn't read the whole paper.

But in any case, everyone knows their former position was wrong. They acknowledge it and have revised it. [/b]
Ah, I see.

I thought perhaps the ghost of Mao came to Avakian in a dream to relay this brilliant little nugget of wisdom.

Class antagonisms. Genius I say, pure genius. "I CAN'T STAND BEING HELD DOWN BY THE BOURGEIOUS ANYMORE! I'M GONNA GO GAY!"

[jasmine]

I wasn't referring to Weimar Germany, but rather the post-medieval Germany that was formed, sometime in the 1870s.

I think you are mistaken: http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/ho01.html

Homosexuality was illegal under the criminal code following the unification of Germany in the 1870's. It seems that gays were tolerated in Weimar Germany despite this. Then of course came the Nazis.

[Marsella]

Ah, I see.

I thought perhaps the ghost of Mao came to Avakian in a dream to relay this brilliant little nugget of wisdom.

Class antagonisms. Genius I say, pure genius. "I CAN'T STAND BEING HELD DOWN BY THE BOURGEIOUS ANYMORE! I'M GONNA GO GAY!"

:lol:

That is brilliant. :lol:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:32 am


Russian Communist Maxim Gorky infamously remarked in his 1934 essay Proletarian Humanism: "Exterminate homosexuals, and Fascism will disappear."

:o
Not quite.


"In the land where the proletariat governs courageously (muzhestvenno; also translated as manfully) and successfully, homosexuality, with its corrupting effect on the young, is considered a social crime punishable under the law. By contrast, in the 'cultivated land' of the great philosophers, scholars and musicians [Gorky meant Germany--L.F.], it is practiced freely and with impunity. There is already a sarcastic saying: 'Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear.'"

http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php

[Dros]

I was questioning your remark that that former RCP stance was not homophobic. Clearly thinking that homosexuality will disappear after the revolution implies a moral stance that homosexuality is somehow 'unnatural' - the result of class antagonisms rather than a particular biological explanation or another social explanation.

Right. That line, while clearly wrong, is not inherently homophobic. It does not say that gays are inferior. It reflects a commonly held (and at the time not disproven) notion that homosexuality was in some way "unnatural".

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:19 pm
Theres a lot of criticism over parties like the RCP or PLP that were slow to embrace homosexuality and playing devil's advocate: what does homosexuality have to do with Marxism?

Now granted one could say its the same as race. But use of racial hatred goes directly towards dividing the working class, while there isn't any major movement to divide straight gay workers. And no socialist nation in the world ever made homosexuality legal.

Maybe I'm just ignorant on the topic but I don't get the assumption that homosexuality is part of the revleft cause.
i haven't read any of the posts after this so i might be repeating a lot of whats already been said.
there are loads of "self organised groups" within the "revolutionary left", gay lesbian and transgender groups being amongst them.
whilst i appreciate these groups have "concerns"? that need to be put forward to the rest of us that can't understand cos it's not happening to us, i don't accept that any special privileges, like the right to a guaranteed seat on the executive of your union/political party for your representative is conducive to a better understanding oftheproblems faced by minority groups.
i think that any kind of "positive discrimination" implies that those within those groups are somehow less able than the rest of us. which is clearly bullshit.
i dunno about everybody else, but i have had friends and workmates that were gay, lesbian or transgender all my working life, not to mention the "immigrants", (god i hate that word), drug addiicts etc.
i look at it this way; if someone has a valid argument, a valid point to make, a valid analysis of the situation or whatever, what the fuck does it matter what his/her sexuality, race or religion is.
having said all that, back in the 80s, militant supported a candidate, pat wall, i think, that believed a socialist society would bring about an end to homosexuality.
the guy wasn't prejudiced against homosexuals, just believed they were a product of capitalist society.
go and play with that.

[gilhyle]

Decriminalising homsexuality is a bourgeois democratic demand, which explains why it was done by the French Revolution. It should be supported by Marxists as part of their support for the full implementation of domocratic demands.