Maoists: Gays are a capitalist pollutant

[Unicorn]

NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".
Emerging from a decade of fighting government forces, the insurgents have launched a clean-up drive against polygamy, polyandry, infidelity, drunkenness and homosexuality -- even though many gays were previously aligned with the Maoists against the autocratic rule of the widely despised King Gyanendra.

Maoist cadres, seen regularly on the streets of Kathmandu as they move towards taking over key roles in the Government under a peace accord worked out with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, have warned home owners not to let out rooms to gays and lesbians.

They have also announced "a zero-tolerance policy towards homosexuality" and a crackdown on pornographic films.

A Maoist commander allegedly told a group of gay men: "We are against any aberrant activity that could have a negative and vitiating effect on society."

And when members of the gay rights group Blue Diamond Society met Maoist leader Dev Gurung, he reportedly said homosexuality was a by-product of capitalism. "Under Soviet rule and when China was still very much a communist state, there were no homosexuals in the Soviet Union or China," Mr Gurung is reported to have said.

"Now they are moving towards capitalism, homosexuals may have arisen there as well. So homosexuality is a product of capitalism. Under socialism this kind of problem does not exist."

According to India's IANS news service, when the Blue Diamond Society members met other Maoist leaders to complain that homosexuals were under attack from Maoist cadres, the reaction was "disheartening".

Amrita Thapa, general secretary of the Maoist women's association, told a conference recently that homosexuals were unnatural and were "polluting" society.

Under King Gyanendra's rule, homosexuals were a pet target of his personal security apparatus.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21016174-2703,00.html

This is really troubling... Does anybody know more of the homophobia of Nepalese Maoists?

[Red_or_Dead]

Fucktards. Homosexuality has been around since the ancient times, how can it be a product of capitalism?

I wonder, what are the Maoists views on homosexuality, from Maoists of Revleft?

[trivas7]

How fucked up is that? Perhaps the commander would find Iran where President Ahmadinejad assures us there are no gays less troubling.

[TC]

LOL "
A Maoist commander allegedly told a group of gay men: "We are against any aberrant activity that could have a negative and vitiating effect on society." "

Hmmmm so an unnamed Maoist allegedly made a comment with no media witnesses.

More anti-Maoist bullshit, nothing from official sources; even if some Maoist cadre is homophobic (the existence of homophobes in a society that was feudalist until a matter of months ago, shocking!) that would prove nothing.

This is just more crap from the reactionary Blue Diamond society that repeatedly attacks the Maoists in the Western press without being able to provide any documentation while the Maoists whenever asked always reject their claims. Nepali Maoists are not as an organisation anti-gay and any other group wouldn't have to even respond to baseless unsubstantiated allegations. The article is designed to slander the Maoists by putting phrases in quotations as if they came from the Maoists when in fact they were just attributed to them by the Blue Diamond Society.

[Leo]

Actually I have little doubt that Maoists in Nepal are quite homophobic.

Western leftists can fantasize as much as they want about how "progressive" the stalinists in the third world are, but generally they are very homophobic, patriotic, patriarchal and extremely conservative in social issues in general.

[Dros]

Western leftists can fantasize as much as they want about how "progressive" the stalinists in the third world are, but generally they are very homophobic, patriotic, patriarchal and extremely conservative in social issues in general.

That's really not true at all. Historically, and in the present, Maoists world wide, even in areas where they don't have state control have been incredibly progressive forces especially when it comes to gender relations, children's issues, education, etc.

I really have no idea where you get the patriotic nonsense.

This kind of attitude is representative of the first/second world chauvinism that has plagued the left for a long time.

This myth that homosexuality is a "bourgeois decadence" is one that is firmly grounded in years of the ICM and it's sadly one that some comrades haven't ruptured with yet, in the west and in the east, and it is necessary always to sharply struggle with them. This is rooted in the lack of science about homosexuality prior to the eighties (in any real sense) and the scientific verdicts are only beginning to become apparent right now to a lot of people that homosexuality is natural.

I thought this would be obvious to people who post on a forum that was previously called Che lives. He didn't really have the best record on this issue either.

And of course the Maoists on this board take the correct position on homosexuality. Good grief.

[Leo]

That's really not true at all.Whatever, believe what you want to believe.


Historically, and in the present, Maoists world wide, even in areas where they don't have state control have been incredibly progressive forces especially when it comes to gender relations, children's issues, education, etc.

I really have no idea where you get the patriotic nonsense.Probably because I actually know how they are like?

Besides, Mao was a patriot himself, and Stalinism has always been a very patriotic ideology in general.

[Ol' Dirty]

It's not the first prejudiced thing to come out of the mouth of a 'Maoist.'

[BobKKKindle$]

It's not the first prejudiced thing to come out of the mouth of a 'Maoist.'

Members of every ideological current have made comments which are prejudiced. Bakunin made disparaging remarks about Jewish people ("a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite" etc.) and yet it would be wrong to suggest that every Anarchist hates jewish people simply because an individual anarchist who lived in the nineteenth century was an anti-Semite. The fact that a Maoist has made these remarks is not evidence that homophobia is inherent to all Maoists, or Maoism as an ideology, but an indication of the material conditions in Nepal.

[Zurdito]

Actually I have little doubt that Maoists in Nepal are quite homophobic.

Western leftists can fantasize as much as they want about how "progressive" the stalinists in the third world are, but generally they are very homophobic, patriotic, patriarchal and extremely conservative in social issues in general.

Mainstream maoists and stalinists in Argentina aren't homophobic or misogynistic, that's a third world country. The largest Maoist Party, the PCR, is big on the right to take drugs and free sexuality etc., this despite them having a nationalistic third-worldist ideology which has led them to support repressive right-wing govt.'s at times...this isn't some small student post-maoist sect I am talkign about, it is the largest Maoist Party in a Catholic third-world country with a history of third-worldist, nationalist guerrilla war.

Also I take what you are saying as true in many cases, but when a revolutionary movement degenerates into repression of certain groups at home surely we have to see this as a consequence of being unable to solve the problems it came to power to solve and needing to look for a place to channel the discontent. We have to see that as a consequence of an udbnerstanding between a bureaucratic "middle-man" leadership, and the imperialists who place under seige any country whichc hallenges them.

So surely when those bureaucratic-led popular movements do challenge imperilaism, we need to give them critical but unconditional support, as they are challenging the cause of the material basis for backwardness and repression in that society. Like when a repressive right-wingt rade union bureaucracy takes action against the bosses, we don't fail to back that action just because that bureaucracy in itself doesn't go far enoguh against capitalism, and instead has to be forced at other times to be repressive to its members.

[nvm]

NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".

Don't forget that Stalin had an anti-gay policy.
5 years imprisonment if you committed the "crime" of being homosexual

[Leo]

Mainstream maoists and stalinists in Argentina aren't homophobic or misogynistic, that's a third world country.I'd call that an exception.


The largest Maoist Party, the PCR, is big on the right to take drugs and free sexuality etc., this despite them having a nationalistic third-worldist ideology which has led them to support repressive right-wing govt.'s at times...this isn't some small student post-maoist sect I am talkign about, it is the largest Maoist Party in a Catholic third-world country with a history of third-worldist, nationalist guerrilla war.This isn't that much better, to be honest :glare:


Also I take what you are saying as true in many cases, but when a revolutionary movement degenerates into repression of certain groupsActually, I haven't said that they degenerated into what they are. I think, for an overwhelming majority of them, those were the general positions they started with.


surely we have to see this as a consequence of being unable to solve the problems it came to power to solve and needing to look for a place to channel the discontent.Again I disagree. I think it's just that stalinism, being a bourgeois ideology that is deeply affiliated with national capital in different countries, and in third world countries, since conservative approaches are very common among the national capital, stalinists tend to be very socially conservative as well.


So surely when those bureaucratic-led popular movements do challenge imperilaism, we need to give them critical but unconditional support, as they are challenging the cause of the material basis for backwardness and repression in that society.Those people are not capable of challenging imperialism: they are capable of finding an imperialist power to back them up, only.

I am sure many in those "movements" have good intentions. This doesn't change their nature, nor does it change the nature of their ideologies.

Stalinism isn't bourgeois because it's socially conservative: it is socially conservative because it's bourgeois. Similarly, stalinism in the west tends to be more liberal those days, and this is because the bourgeoisie in the west attempts to appear more socially liberal. What determines how socially liberal or conservative a certain stalinist group is the approach of the national bourgeoisie on this issue.


Like when a repressive right-wingt rade union bureaucracy takes action against the bosses, we don't fail to back that action just because that bureaucracy in itself doesn't go far enoguh against capitalism, and instead has to be forced at other times to be repressive to its members.When a right-wing (or left wing for that matter) trade union bureaucracy takes action against the bosses, communist completely support and the interests of the workers involved in this struggle, while revealing the true nature and intentions of the trade-union leaders and pointing out that workers interests lie in acting independently from trade-unions.

[Zurdito]

This isn't that much better, to be honest

I should clarify, I'm no supporter of the PCR, but I meant that Argentina has a history of those things, not the PCR specifically.

The PCR actually disgracefully wanted to uphold Isabela Peron's government as it fought against guerrillas...but that's another issue.



I am sure many who make those "movements" have good intentions. This doesn't change their nature, nor does it change the nature of their ideologies.

Well with respect I thinkt his is a very static and undialectical view, if they make the movement, then the bureaucrats rest on them, and so these social forces have the pwoer to presusre the bureaucracy, forcing it to mvoe leftwards or forcing a break. I don't see how you hope to break the illusions of the mass mvoement in the leadership if you don't put demands on the leadership.

[punisa]

and a crackdown on pornographic films.

If a movie exploits people then it's bad, but I see no reason not to have classless porn in communist society :lol:

Jokes aside, this news is very disturbing. I always thought that left is about human and social progress. These guys sound like hardcore conservatives - pope would love them :ohmy:

[Leo]

Well with respect I thinkt his is a very static and undialectical view, if they make the movement, then the bureaucrats rest on them, and so these social forces have the pwoer to presusre the bureaucracy, forcing it to mvoe leftwards or forcing a break. I don't see how you hope to break the illusions of the mass mvoement in the leadership if you don't put demands on the leadership.

Actually, I think I expressed myself badly, and this was not what I wanted that sentence to mean. It should read as something like: I am sure many in those "movements" have good intentions. But even the bureaucrats might have good intentions as well, it's not the point, and the point I was trying to make was that this is not a matter of intentions but a matter of politics.

After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So I am not saying that those movements are revolutionary in their base and bureaucratic in their leadership. I'm saying that they have bourgeois politics and are affiliated with national capital, regardless of how well the interests of individuals within them are, and despite the fact that they might subjectively be desiring communism.

[professorchaos]

I was excited about the Maoists gaining power and was anxious to see where it went. This news killed that hope.

[rebelworker]

This is sadly not suprsing at all and certainly not a third world fenomenum...

The RCP in the USA held this exact position(well into the 1990's if Im not mistaken) and the largest Maoist current in North America (quebec in the 1970's) was just as socially conservative, they forced gay members to pair up with straight one to make revolutionary babies and even went public in saying (when they took controll of the daycare workers union) that they would not allow "their" children to masterbate ans it was a petty burgoise deviation...

Authoritarian politics tend to be conservative socially wiether they be from the right or left...

[N3wday]

Unfortunately it appears that some of this is not propaganda. I consider myself generally a supporter of the CPN(M), but am of course, very critical of this position. :thumbdown:

Here is an article that appeared on the Kasama website (and was originally published on Counterpunch).


CPN(M) on Homosexuality

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), leading what many have considered the most advanced Maoist movement in the world for the last decade, has recently been accused of attacks on gay people and of indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Unfortunately the reports seem valid. In January a senior party leader, Dev Gurung, now Minister of Local Development in Nepal’s transitional government, was quoted in the press as stating: “Under Soviet rule and when China was still very much a communist state, there were no homosexuals in the Soviet Union or China. Now [that] they are moving towards capitalism, homosexuals may have arisen there as well. So homosexuality is a product of capitalism. Under socialism this kind of problem does not exist.”

The statement seems quite un-Maoist in its description of any twentieth-century socialist experiment as truly “communist.” Mao broke from Stalin in emphasizing the long-term nature and fragility of the construction of socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and the classless society of communism theoretically posited for the human future. And it seems oblivious to historical reality in denying the existence of homosexuality anywhere, anytime in human history. Dangerously foolish (if I can assume that it was indeed said), it was made in the context of reported abuses of gay men and lesbians by Maoists in areas under their control.

Such mistreatment has not been particularly associated with the Maoists in recent years, but indeed more with the old security apparatus of King Gyanendra. It’s not clear that it represents a clear party line; Hisila Yami, a Maoist member of parliament, Minister of Physical Planning and Work and wife of party leader Baburam Bhattarai told a Nepali gay organization, the Blue Diamond Society in January that the party’s policy was “not to encourage homosexual behavior but not to punish homosexuals either.” But plainly there is cause for the sort of concern recently expressed by Human Rights Watch in a letter to Khadga Bahadur Biswokarma, a CPN(M) member and now Minister of Women, Children and Social Welfare. The letter claims that in December 2006, Maoists in Katmandu ordered homeowners not to rent rooms to gays or lesbians, and that Amrita Thapa, general secretary of the Maoist women’s association, told participants at a national conference in March 2006 that homosexuals were unnatural and were “polluting” society.

I’ve sometimes been critical of Human Rights Watch, which has little sympathy for revolutionary movements and has sometimes sided overtly with repressive regimes. (It congratulated the government of Alberto Fujimori in Peru for capturing Maoist leader Abimael Guzman in 1992 and has done little to protect the human rights of Maoists imprisoned under successive Peruvian regimes.) But here HRW seems to be on target in its criticism.

The communist movement of course has a long sordid history of homophobia—just as does bourgeois liberalism. Up to 1962 homosexual sex was punishable by lengthy jail terms everywhere in the U.S., and it was only in 2003 that the Supreme Court invalidated the “anti-sodomy” laws operative in Texas and several other states. The sentiments expressed by Gurung and Biswokarma are obviously not unique to communists but part of an historical continuum of intolerance that crosses all kinds of ideological lines.

Marx and Engels themselves were, as their private correspondence clearly establishes, distinctly hostile to homosexuality, which they viewed as “unnatural.” On the other hand, in the 1890s, the German Social Democratic Party leaders Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, and the socialist Reichstag deputy August Bebel, called for the repeal of the German statute criminalizing sex between consenting adult males. Bernstein called for “a scientific approach” to sexuality rather than one based on “more or less arbitrary moral concepts.” (Meanwhile the British socialist Edward Carpenter, influenced by the work of German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, argued that “uranians”–or members the “intermediate sex”–served in a positive role as a bridge between [heterosexual] men and women.) Adolf Thiele, a socialist deputy in the German parliament in 1905, declared that he “wouldn’t even admit that [homosexuality] is something sick.” It was, he opined, “simply a deviation from the usual pattern nature produces.”

Between 1917 and 1933, the USSR pioneered in sexual legal reform. The Bolsheviks in power rescinded all the anti-homosexual statutes in the czarist legal code and sent Soviet delegations to international sexual reform congresses in Europe. The early Soviet state officially declared “the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one’s interests are encroached upon.” Soviet law regarded homosexual intercourse as the same as “so-called natural intercourse” and was far ahead of (for example) U.S. law at the time.

All this changed in 1933, when the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party introduced a statute penalizing consensual homosexual activity (muzhelozhstvo or sodomy) between men; thereafter Soviet writers increasingly conflated male homosexuality as indeed “unnatural,” and associated it with German fascism. Not all Marxist theorists followed the Soviet lead in castigating homosexual activity, but the most prestigious of Marxist psychoanalysts, Sigmund Freud’s student William Reich, wrote in 1934 that men of a “homosexual tendency” were easily “drawn toward the right.”

Gurung’s association of homosexuality with capitalism echoes the Stalinist line that homosexuality represents “bourgeois decadence.” But Gurung should realize that Maoists outside Nepal have largely abandoned the Stalinist legacy on this issue. The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, a close ally of the Nepali Maoists, up until 2001 stated in its program that under socialism “struggle will be waged to eliminate [homosexuality] and reform homosexuals.” But the RCP now accepts homosexuality and renounces its past position on the issue (if without adequate self-criticism or explanation for why a bankrupt line was held so long). The Communist Party of the Philippines, another Maoist party with cordial ties to the CPN(M), officially recognized gay relationships among its members in 1998 and has been conducting same-sex marriages since 2005. The Nepali party lags embarrassingly behind.

Many have derived inspiration from the People’s War in Nepal, which in a mere decade acquired control over about 80% of Nepali territory and proved to the world that revolutionary communism remains the hope of the hopeless. I myself was happy to endorse Li Onesto’s first-person and very sympathetic account of her Maoist-sponsored visit to Nepal, Dispatches from the People’s War in Nepal (Pluto Press, 2005). The party now shares power with its former foes, heading six ministries in the provisional government. Some who have supported the CPN(M) are expressing grave concern that the party is abandoning its commitment to socialist revolution by its deal with the seven mainstream parties and its abandonment of the People’s War.

The Nepali Maoists deny that that’s the case, and I’d just as soon withhold judgment on that issue. But if the sentiments of Comrades Gurung and Biswokarma are at all representative of party sentiment, and if measures against gays are part of the party’s agenda, the outlook for a new revolutionary model in Nepal is looking worrisome.


* * * * *


Mao Zedong was all about struggle, always stressing that it’s right to rebel against reactionaries. He saw inter-party two-line struggle as a good and inevitable thing. There is already some apparent struggle within the CPN(M) regarding gender and sexuality issues. Earlier this months Maoists protested the television broadcast of the Miss Nepal Pageant. But it went forward, with the support of the new Information and Communications Minister, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, himself one of the newly-appointed Maoist cabinet ministers. He argued “practical considerations” (including a contract between pageant sponsors and the state-run channel) did not allow cancellation.

So—so far—beauty pageant okay, homosexuality “polluting.” May the Maoists of Nepal struggle these things out among themselves, with some input from the world, and the correct line win.


* * * * *


Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: unfortunately I don't have enough posts to include email addresses. You can find it on the Kasama site or on Counterpunch.
*****

Here is something noteworthy the author posted on Kasama after the article was published.


Gary Leupp

A few quick points.
This column was posted a year ago on Counterpunch. I did not suggest its posting on the Kasama site and was surprised to find it here.
I feel enthusiastic about the recent victory of our friends in Nepal and think that in the wake of that victory the most important thing is to express solidarity with them.
After writing my column a year ago I learned more about the construction of sexuality in Nepal, and in particular, learned that the community affected by discrimination was/is principally not gays and lesbians in the U.S. sense but cross-dressing entertainers connected to certain establishments who occupy a niche in Nepal’s caste system. This does not excuse discrimination, period, nor justify the quotes I provide in my piece. But I feel I need to investigate further before speaking further.
****

If anyone is interested, I found the comments following this article on the Kasama site helpful.

Sorry don't have time to write more.

****


I wonder, what are the Maoists views on homosexuality, from Maoists of Revleft? ok, I'll bite.

I think you have the right to be involved in any type of relationship or characterize yourself as any type of gender, as long as the connections you build with other people are based on mutual love and respect. And if you meet those stipulations, I believe you deserve the utmost respect from others.

In other words I believe in love and acceptance, not tolerance.

[Dros]

I can't even hear myself over the deafening roar of the opportunism in this thread.

[N3wday]

I can't even hear myself over the deafening roar of the opportunism in this thread.

Care to elaborate?


I was excited about the Maoists gaining power and was anxious to see where it went. This news killed that hope.

I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the whole movement due to this.


May the Maoists of Nepal struggle these things out among themselves, with some input from the world, and the correct line win.

I think this represents the correct outlook on this situation. They are emerging from a feudal country plagued by the remnants of a brutal caste system, it's not an excuse but something to keep in mind. If there is a outwardly bad line expressed by the leadership, it doesn't mean that there isn't internal struggle raging over it. I'm advocating critical solidarity.

[Charliesoo]

This is a bit crazy. Homosexuality and Capitalist do not go hand in hand, I believe. Homosexuality has been around for millenia.

[N3wday]

Yes and has also been the sexuality of the oppressed and the oppressor. Sexuality and gender are incredibly dynamic.

[Comrade B]

Let's say the ridiculous belief that western influence creates homosexuality is true (which it clearly isn't)

Wouldn't simply removing western influence then solve this "problem"?

God I hate homophobia in politics... people come up with the stupidest reasons to justify their hatred for homosexuals.

-Funny random thing
There is an advertisement at the top of the screen for "Meet Rich Gay Men"

[Killer Enigma]

Care to elaborate?
"Opportunism", when used by Maoists and Stalinists, generally refers to any criticism of either ideological founder. It is much like the modern usage of the term "fascism" (incorrectly referring to anyone from Republicans, to Democrats, to teenage skinhead punks).

[Axel1917]

Actually I have little doubt that Maoists in Nepal are quite homophobic.

Western leftists can fantasize as much as they want about how "progressive" the stalinists in the third world are, but generally they are very homophobic, patriotic, patriarchal and extremely conservative in social issues in general.

I doubt all Maoists are homophobic, but when it comes to the Maoists like Prachanda, they are hardcore pro-capitalists. Hell, some of the favored places for investment in India are controlled by Maoists.

[RHIZOMES]

Ah, the hypocrisy of unicorn. A BREZHNEVITE condemning another ideology for being homophobic. Remember, Russia didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 1993. :rolleyes:

[Del]

I have never met any Maoists who are homophobic, and I have met more than a few.

[Devrim]

I have never met any Maoists who are homophobic, and I have met more than a few.

And you live in...New Zealand.

Read what Leo said again:


Again I disagree. I think it's just that stalinism, being a bourgeois ideology that is deeply affiliated with national capital in different countries, and in third world countries, since conservative approaches are very common among the national capital, stalinists tend to be very socially conservative as well.
...
Stalinism isn't bourgeois because it's socially conservative: it is socially conservative because it's bourgeois. Similarly, stalinism in the west tends to be more liberal those days, and this is because the bourgeoisie in the west attempts to appear more socially liberal. What determines how socially liberal or conservative a certain stalinist group is the approach of the national bourgeoisie on this issue.

Devrim

[subham]

Homosexuality as a predominant phenomenon of late Capitalism undoubtedly shows the social decadence and ideological bankruptcy. It existed in ancient society as well, but the people who are struggling for the rights of homosexuals are trying to deflect the people's attention from real social problems!!:)

[subham]

Homosexuality is undoubtedly an ancient phenomenon, but flourished in the era of late Capitalism as a result of ideological as well as political bankruptcy!!

[RHIZOMES]

Homosexuality as a predominant phenomenon of late Capitalism undoubtedly shows the social decadence and ideological bankruptcy. It existed in ancient society as well, but the people who are struggling for the rights of homosexuals are trying to deflect the people's attention from real social problems!!:)

Homosexuality is undoubtedly an ancient phenomenon, but flourished in the era of late Capitalism as a result of ideological as well as political bankruptcy!!

Fuck off.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Homosexuality as a predominant phenomenon of late Capitalism undoubtedly shows the social decadence and ideological bankruptcy. It existed in ancient society as well, but the people who are struggling for the rights of homosexuals are trying to deflect the people's attention from real social problems!!:)
What? how does it "undoubtedly show the social decadence and ideological bankruptcy" if I choose to have sex with another man? Stop talking out of your ass.

Also rights of homosexuals deflect attention from real social problems? FUCK OF. You think that peoples right to choose their partner is not a "real social problem"? You think that discrimination is not a real social problem?

Believe it or not homosexuality has nothing to do with capitalism, not even with humanity, its a normal behaviour among many species, completely unrelated to social conditions.

[communard resolution]

Homosexuality as a predominant phenomenon of late Capitalism undoubtedly shows the social decadence and ideological bankruptcy. Kick this piece of shit homophobe out of here.

[Black Dagger]

Homosexuality as a predominant phenomenon of late Capitalism undoubtedly shows the social decadence and ideological bankruptcy.

Are you a materialist? If so, could you please explain how this position is compatible with a materialist, scientific outlook?

In case it wasn't obvious enough already, science has demonstrated that 'homosexuality', i.e. same-sex attraction, is a natural phenomenon found in a wide variety of species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior) (including humans) irrespective of historical context, mode of production etc.



It existed in ancient society as well, but the people who are struggling for the rights of homosexuals are trying to deflect the people's attention from real social problems!!:)

Of course 'it' existed in ancient society - same sex attraction is naturally occuring so it exists in any society because it is a fundamental characteristic of human (and non-human) populations.

As for the second part, what 'real' social problems are you referring to?

Given that homosexuality is still illegal in hundreds of countries and punishable by death in many of these, i think its fair to say that homophobia is a real problem globally; and as with the struggle of any oppressed minority it is vital that revolutionaries join the fight to defend our brothers and sisters. The working class is not a class of whites, of men or of heteros - we're everybody! So our fight is against all oppression, for everybody... against the bosses, and against the ruling class - for our freedom, for our liberation as a class, not the 'liberation' of sections of working people.

[zelda]

ALL People should realize that being the loudest voice, being extremely rude and obnoxious, does not necessarily get you what you want or your voice to be heard over everyone else's.

[communard resolution]

ALL People should realize that being the loudest voice, being extremely rude and obnoxious, does not necessarily get you what you want or your voice to be heard over everyone else's.

Only because subham expresses his obnoxious views in a polite manner, it doesn't mean he deserves to be treated with politeness.

[hekmatista]

Homosexuality is undoubtedly an ancient phenomenon, but flourished in the era of late Capitalism as a result of ideological as well as political bankruptcy!!
This would have been a perfectly acceptable statement, agreed to by almost all Maoists and other "antirevisionists", back during the "party-building" years of the late 70's to early 80's in the USA. We should acknowledge our own past, while criticizing the Indian comrade's bad line.

[Black Dagger]

Are you a materialist? If so, could you please explain how this position is compatible with a materialist, scientific outlook?

In case it wasn't obvious enough already, science has demonstrated that 'homosexuality', i.e. same-sex attraction, is a natural phenomenon found in a wide variety of species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior) (including humans) irrespective of historical context, mode of production etc.



Of course 'it' existed in ancient society - same sex attraction is naturally occuring so it exists in any society because it is a fundamental characteristic of human (and non-human) populations.

As for the second part, what 'real' social problems are you referring to?

Given that homosexuality is still illegal in hundreds of countries and punishable by death in many of these, i think its fair to say that homophobia is a real problem globally; and as with the struggle of any oppressed minority it is vital that revolutionaries join the fight to defend our brothers and sisters. The working class is not a class of whites, of men or of heteros - we're everybody! So our fight is against all oppression, for everybody... against the bosses, and against the ruling class - for our freedom, for our liberation as a class, not the 'liberation' of sections of working people.


Hey Subham since you're online fancy replying?

[N3wday]

"Opportunism", when used by Maoists and Stalinists, generally refers to any criticism of either ideological founder. It is much like the modern usage of the term "fascism" (incorrectly referring to anyone from Republicans, to Democrats, to teenage skinhead punks).

Thanks for the sectarian trivia. I'm a Maoist btw.

I'm going to have to second most peoples sentiments here... Subham, WTF are you talking about?

[Dros]

Thanks for the sectarian trivia. I'm a Maoist btw.

Yeah.

With regards to your original question (and Killer Enigma's fanciful bullshit aside) I was pointing out that the whole argument here, the one that goes "this individual "Maoist" / group of "Maoists" has taken this line on homosexuality means that all Maoists are homophobes or that anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism is socially conservative is such a clearly false and erroneous argument that its advancement by otherwise intelligent people can be understood as predatorily utilizing a situation to make unfounded conclusions based on false premises, for the specific purpose of invalidating Maoism.

That is what I meant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ah, the hypocrisy of unicorn. A BREZHNEVITE condemning another ideology for being homophobic. Remember, Russia didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 1993. :rolleyes:

QFT :laugh:

[Saorsa]

I find it completely despicable the way so many people who claim to be revolutionary Marxists refuse to defend groups that are leading revolutions when they are attacked and slandered by the bourgeois media. Since when was the fucking Australian a reliable source when it came to revolutionary communists?

To everyone who claims that third world "Stalinists and Maoists" are reactionary on social issues, take the time to do a fucking google search. Guess who conducted the first gay marriage in the Philippines (http://www.workers.org/2005/world/npa_0224/)? The New People's Army, a Maoist organisation! As Mao would have said, no investigation, no right to speak. So shut you're dumbass mouths until you've done you're research.


I doubt all Maoists are homophobic, but when it comes to the Maoists like Prachanda, they are hardcore pro-capitalists. Hell, some of the favored places for investment in India are controlled by Maoists.

You're an idiot. The CPN (M) are working alongside whoever they can to eliminate feudalism, and once that task is completed it's on to capitalism. They've been perfectly clear about this, as can be seen in the latest issue of the Red Star as well as in numerous interviews with their leaders.

And with regards to "some of the favored places for investment in India being controlled by Maoists", which areas are you referring to? West Bengal, and the other areas controlled by the Communist Party of India (Marxist)? The CPM (as it's referred to) is not a Maoist organisation.

The Communist Party of India (Maoist) is waging armed struggle in the CPM controlled areas... I'm sure they'd love to hear you tell them the area is already controlled by Maoists! :lol:

Just because they have the same initials doesn't mean they're the same organisation douchebag.

When the capitalist media puts out slander and lies to discredit revolutionary groups and leaders, and revolutions that are taking place, you have to make a choice - do you stand up for you're revolutionary beliefs, even if it's going to result in reactionary-minded people not liking you? Or do you accept the lies of the bourgeoisie at face value, and denounce people who are actually struggling to make a break with feudalism and capitalism?

I know which side I'm on - the revolutionary communist one. The choice is yours.

[Saorsa]

Lol, doesn't look like anyone has either the facts or the balls to respond to my post!:lol:

[Devrim]

To respond Alistair,
I don't think there is anything remotely communist about the Maoist organisations, or their 'revolution' in Nepal.

To everyone who claims that third world "Stalinists and Maoists" are reactionary on social issues, take the time to do a fucking google search.

I live in the Middle East. I don't need to do a 'goggle search', I can see it clearly.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

I don't think there is anything remotely communist about the Maoist organisations, or their 'revolution' in Nepal.

Wow, great argument Devrim... I hadn't even considered the fact that you don't think there is anything remotely communist about the Maoist organisations, or their 'revolution' in Nepal. My goodness, that changes everything! Obviously, all that matters is you're opinion, it's not like you have to present facts and evidence to back that statement up or anything! A typically crushing response...


I live in the Middle East. I don't need to do a 'goggle search', I can see it clearly.

Um, and the fact that I just proved wrong you're blanket statement that Third World Maoists are reactionary on social issues is irrelevant? Unless you've suddenly decided that gay marriage is "reactionary"? :lol:

Te fact that you live in Turkey does not make you exempt from having to present evidence mate. Which Maoist group (or groups) in Turkey do you think is reactionary on social issues, and can you provide evidence to back you're opinion up?

I'm waiting with baited breath.

[Devrim]

Alistair, I think generally the type of cadre that the Maoists attract aren't generally worth taking the time to argue with. That is in Turkey where at least they can be admired for some human qualities such as personal bravery. I certainly can't be bothered to take the time to do the research to argue with a wannabe Maoist from New Zealand.

So, I am not going to run around researching documents on each Maoist groups line on social issues, but I do know that generally they condemn it as a bourgeois deviation. This in itself is unsurprising. Many people in our society are anti-homosexual.

Also, this doesn't apply to Turkey alone, but also to other Middle Eastern countries (I am a national of an Arab state, and have lived in two other Middle east countries as well as having visited a great many others).

The fact that one Maoist group in the Philippines conducted a gay marriage doesn't prove anything either.

Read again what Leo wrote paying careful attention to the word I have put in bold:


Again I disagree. I think it's just that stalinism, being a bourgeois ideology that is deeply affiliated with national capital in different countries, and in third world countries, since conservative approaches are very common among the national capital, stalinists tend to be very socially conservative as well.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

Unfortunately it appears that some of this is not propaganda. I consider myself generally a supporter of the CPN(M), but am of course, very critical of this position. :thumbdown:

Here is an article that appeared on the Kasama website (and was originally published on Counterpunch).

*****

Here is something noteworthy the author posted on Kasama after the article was published.

****

If anyone is interested, I found the comments following this article on the Kasama site helpful.

Sorry don't have time to write more.

****
Thanks for posting these, they are very interesting articles. I agree with most of the sentiments of the author.


I can't even hear myself over the deafening roar of the opportunism in this thread.
It's pretty interesting that some people always seem to be jumping at the opportunity to denounce some kind of movement. Or to renounce some previously-held "faith" in this or that revolutionary movement because they read something in the newspaper or on Wikipedia... I, obviously, also think that the CPN (M)'s apparent line on homophobia is crap, but that doesn't mean that the whole people's struggle in Nepal deserves condemnation now...


Guess who conducted the first gay marriage in the Philippines (http://www.workers.org/2005/world/npa_0224/)? The New People's Army, a Maoist organisation!
Ah, I was looking for that for a while. I thought it was the Nepali maoists who did this, which is why the "capitalist pollutant" stuff surprised me. But it's the NPA in the Philippines. Unsurprisingly. Looking at the way the Philippino maoists work (there are a lot of exiles here, including Sison, whom the Dutch government is attempting to prosecute and deport), there seems to be a lot of commitment. They always seem to be interested in good contacts, regardless of whether it's with maoists or not.

[Saorsa]

Alistair, I think generally the type of cadre that the Maoists attract aren't generally worth taking the time to argue with. That is in Turkey where at least they can be admired for some human qualities such as personal bravery. I certainly can't be bothered to take the time to do the research to argue with a wannabe Maoist from New Zealand.It would be disheartening to be repeatedly beaten in whatever debate you ever engage a Maoist in.

I'll ignore the arrogance and sectarianism evident in that post, and settle for inquiring about what one earth you're doing on Revleft if you can't be bothered arguing with Maoists (even if they are apparently of the wannabe variety)? Probably something to do with the fact that I use things like evidence in my posts, whereas you just make generalisations and put out empty meaningless rhetoric.

Also, if having not fought in a people's war makes me a wannabe Maoist, surely having not participated in a Soviet makes you a wannabe Trotskyist?


So, I am not going to run around researching documents on each Maoist groups line on social issues,Well, until you do I'm not going to take you're claims that Maoists tend to take a more reactionary line on social issues than other brands of communism do seriously.

The Moon is blue with purple stripes and is inhabited by a race of warrior Teddie-bears! And because you don't feel the need to back you're statements up with evidence, I won't either.


but I do know that generally they condemn it as a bourgeois deviation. This in itself is unsurprising. Many people in our society are anti-homosexual.Generalisations mean nothing without evidence to back them up. You think Trotskyists have never taken a bad line towards gay people? What's this! Evidence? My goodness, whatever does he need that for? To make his points more valid, perhaps?

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/31/nut-left-abstain-homophobia

http://members.aol.com/RevolutionTruth/resign.htm (see footnote 7, A Trotskyist made homophobic comments)

http://barrysheppardbook.com/leblanc.html
He is critical of the SWP's earlier homophobic tendencies (shared with most of the Left up to the 1970s) and self-critically suggests that its pathbreaking reversal of this failed to go far enough.

So the British SWP, British Socialist Action, American SWP and some nutty sect called the PRG all showed homophobic tendencies.

I'm not claiming that Maoists have never been homophobic, or even repressed gays. That would be a false thing to say. What I'm saying, and furthermore what I've PROVED, is that Maoists do not "tend", by any definition of the word, to be homophobic.

You have failed to provide any evidence to back up you're case, and you're statements that you're too damn lazy to go and do a google search and find some reputable evidence of Maoist homophobia discredits both you're argument and you personally.


Also, this doesn't apply to Turkey alone, but also to other Middle Eastern countries (I am a national of an Arab state, and have lived in two other Middle east countries as well as having visited a great many others).How interesting, and how irrelevant to the matter at hand.


The fact that one Maoist group in the Philippines conducted a gay marriage doesn't prove anything either.Um, yes it does. It proves false the claim that Maoists in the third world are reactionary and homophobic. Counter-evidence please?

[Devrim]

Alistair,
The general reason that I don't bother to engage with Maoists is that in my opinion they tend to have a nationalist anti-worker ideology. From my observations to type of members they tend to attract tend to be lower middle class students.

I don't think that their activities have anything what so ever to do with socialism. I don't think that there is anything socialist about the Maoists in Nepal, and I am sure they will prove fine managers of the capitalist state.


Also, if having not fought in a people's war makes me a wannabe Maoist, surely having not participated in a Soviet makes you a wannabe Trotskyist?

I am not a Trotskyist, and I don't want to be one. I have participated in mass strikes, and I have been elected to strike committees.

I think that Maoists in the West are quite ridiculous. In our country they do go off into the mountains, and fight their 'people's war. I don't think it has anything at all to do with the working class though.

I, do, however wonder with complete bemusement what these kind of people do in New Zealand.


I'm not claiming that Maoists have never been homophobic, or even repressed gays. That would be a false thing to say. What I'm saying, and furthermore what I've PROVED, is that Maoists do not "tend", by any definition of the word, to be homophobic.

Let's read what Leo said again:



Again I disagree. I think it's just that stalinism, being a bourgeois ideology that is deeply affiliated with national capital in different countries, and in third world countries, since conservative approaches are very common among the national capital, stalinists tend to be very socially conservative as well.
...
Stalinism isn't bourgeois because it's socially conservative: it is socially conservative because it's bourgeois. Similarly, stalinism in the west tends to be more liberal those days, and this is because the bourgeoisie in the west attempts to appear more socially liberal. What determines how socially liberal or conservative a certain stalinist group is the approach of the national bourgeoisie on this issue.

So, we are not saying that Maoists tend to be homophobic. I imagine that in the US and New Zealand they aren't. What we are saying is that they tend to reflect the ideology of the national bourgeoisie, and in countries where the bourgoise is more openly socially reactionary, Maoists appear to be too.


you're too damn lazy to go and do a google search

Not too lazy. Just not interested enough in the discussion.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

This is going nowhere, and will continue to do so until you're capable of putting forward an argument that goes further than "I don't think Maoists are socialists. I think they're socially conservative. So there!"


I am not a Trotskyist, and I don't want to be one. I have participated in mass strikes, and I have been elected to strike committees.

Yeah my mistake, you're an ultra-"left" communist.


I, do, however wonder with complete bemusement what these kind of people do in New Zealand.

In the interests of clarification, I would describe myself as a pro-Mao Marxist-Leninist, not a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

What do Maoists get up to in New Zealand? Well, they get involved in trade unions, get involved in strikes (one of my comrades in the WP who leans towards Maoism is currently on the negotiating committee for the bus drivers union in Wellington, who are about to enter a big struggle with the bosses), try to spread revolutionary ideology to the people we work with, they organise and recruit members on university campuses, campaign against imperialist wars, anti-democratic legislation, police brutality etc

I assume that you "don't think that their activities have anything what so ever to do with socialism". And from my experience in NZ, Maoists tend to recruit just as many workers as Trotskyists do, and often more (there are no "left" communist groups here in NZ, and I know of very few "left" communist groups that have developed any kind of support base amongst the working masses. In fact, I'd be interested if you could name a single one!)


What we are saying is that they tend to reflect the ideology of the national bourgeoisie, and in countries where the bourgoise is more openly socially reactionary, Maoists appear to be too.

I suppose that the national bourgeoisie in the Philippines is socially liberal then? I certainly hadn't noticed any evidence of that... but then again, "left" communists show a marked disdain for this whole "evidence" concept.

Until you provide some evidence to back you're statements up, we must assume they have absolutely no basis in reality. If Maoists are reactionary as you say, it really wouldn't be that hard to do... this website might help - www.google.com

[Devrim]

This is going nowhere, and will continue to do so until you're capable of putting forward an argument that goes further than "I don't think Maoists are socialists. I think they're socially conservative. So there!"

Well, yes it is. I am really not at all interested in arguing it (I am just posting this to be polite). I don't think it is a very interesting subject. What we did wasn't to argue this . We presented a thesis. People can take from it what they want. That's it.

Devrim

[nvm]

If they indeed made that statement I would respond
"Maoists are a communist pollutant"

[Mala Tha Testa]

it's been said a bunch, but i don't understand why a few "Maosits" say "gays are a capitalist pollutant" makes all Maoists homophobic.

[Saorsa]

I am really not at all interested in arguing it (I am just posting this to be polite). I don't think it is a very interesting subject.

Hmm, so you and you're buddies are perfectly happy to post unfounded slanderous attacks on Maoism in this thread, and endorse the unfounded slanderous attacks of the bourgeois media on Maoism, but the moment you come under fire and encounter someone who's going to argue back (with factual evidence), you start saying "uh.. um... I don't need to try and come up with a response to that! I never liked this thread anyway!"

You're pathetic.


We presented a thesis.

And you failed to back it up with a stronger argument than "Because I said so!". You sure don't have that much confidence in you're thesis...


it's been said a bunch, but i don't understand why a few "Maosits" say "gays are a capitalist pollutant" makes all Maoists homophobic.

Neither do I...

[RHIZOMES]

Okay so far the score seems to me that the "wannabe Maoist" Alastair won that debate, I may be a bit biased since we're in the same party, but it seems Devrim doesn't actually want to back up any of his statements or arguments! Could a more impartial observer confirm this for me? :rolleyes:


If they indeed made that statement I would respond
"Maoists are a communist pollutant"

And I'd say most Trotskyists (Especially of the cult variety, i.e. Grantites, for example) are a communist pollutant. Sectarianism can work both ways. :lol:

[Gterl23]

Oh god, the ultra-leftist bourgeois in this thread is unbearable, trust them to blow isolated social issues up into ultimatist scenarios out of proportion to their relevance.

[Mujer Libre]

Oh god, the ultra-leftist bourgeois in this thread is unbearable, trust them to blow isolated social issues up into ultimatist scenarios out of proportion to their relevance.

Pray tell, why is GLBTI liberation an "isolated issue?" :rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

Okay so far the score seems to me that the "wannabe Maoist" Alastair won that debate, I may be a bit biased since we're in the same party, but it seems Devrim doesn't actually want to back up any of his statements or arguments! Could a more impartial observer confirm this for me? :rolleyes:
Dingdingding, we have a winner. But I guess it's easier to generalise and refuse to discuss.

[Led Zeppelin]

And I'd say most Trotskyists (Especially of the cult variety, i.e. Grantites, for example)

How are any of the other "varieties" of Trotskyism less "cultist" than "Grantites", or rather, how are "Grantites" "cultists" at all?

The CWI even broke with him when he was proven to be totally wrong on many issues.

[black magick hustla]

To be honest, the maoist experience in Latin america wasn't particularly "progressive" either. THe major maoist group in latin america, which was Sendero Luminoso, was known for decimating whole villages (including unarmed children) to show the state what they were capable of doing (like how criminals murder friends and family of other criminals just because they are relatives). Sendero Luminoso henchmen were also very good at dragging trade union leaders and then shooting them in the head.

Admittedly, the traditional "guevarist" guerrillas like the EPR and FARC are not as horrible as the Sendero Luminoso. I don't think their strategy has a lot to offer to the working class but I don't think they are particuarly terrible compared to the other factions of the latin america bourgeosie - atleast not as the right wing propaganda makes them seem.

I always thought maoist in the third world seemed more like red coated robin hoods, with their "poor people's" slogans and their particular taste for violence. Maybe I am wrong, though.

[RHIZOMES]

How are any of the other "varieties" of Trotskyism less "cultist" than "Grantites", or rather, how are "Grantites" "cultists" at all?

The CWI even broke with him when he was proven to be totally wrong on many issues.

I like the CWI, I wouldn't include them.

Some others I can think of are Jack Barnes and David North and their respective cults.

Anyway I like the definition given in another thread of cults and how it relates to various strands of Trotskyism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1176901&postcount=14





Recruitment madness.
Ideological absolutism (only my clique has it right!).
Worship of leader or theoretical founding father (my guy is the direct continuation of the classics!).
Sectarianism in the marxist sense (my group will make the revolution!).
Sectarianism in the typical sense (all the other groups are wrong!)

[Gterl23]

Pray tell, why is GLBTI liberation an "isolated issue?" :rolleyes:
I'd say the liberation of the working class is a big more pressing my good chap.

[Louis Pio]

The CWI even broke with him when he was proven to be totally wrong on many issues.

Quite simplistic ehh??

Anyway the whole cultism discussion is absolutely ridicioulous most of the time, considering it's mostly based on superficial observations. It's probably so popular cause it's the worlds easiest insult to throw around in regards to other groups one might dislike, so in that sense it can substitute political arguments for lazy people.

[Mujer Libre]

I'd say the liberation of the working class is a big more pressing my good chap.
Um, the working class is not homogenously made up of white, straight men. In order for the same discrimination faced by queer people (as well as women and people of colour) in today's society not to be perpetuated in a communist society, we need to combat these forms of discrimination as well as participating in class struggle.

They're not separate issues, they're fundamentally linked in the project of human liberation.

Also, please don't call me "my good chap." Rather than making you seem intelligent, it makes you come off as a wanker.

[TC]

I hear Chavez has been executing trade unionists too :rolleyes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-executes-opposition-t82655/index.html?p=1181694#post1181694

[nvm]

I hear Chavez has been executing trade unionists too http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-gays-capitalist-t81944/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

troll

[nvm]

Anyway I like the definition given in another thread of cults and how it relates to various strands of Trotskyism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=14 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1176901&postcount=14)


Quote:

Recruitment madness.
Ideological absolutism (only my clique has it right!).
Worship of leader or theoretical founding father (my guy is the direct continuation of the classics!).
Sectarianism in the marxist sense (my group will make the revolution!).
Sectarianism in the typical sense (all the other groups are wrong!)





I responded to that baseless accusation! It is really dumb

[Unicorn]

Ah, the hypocrisy of unicorn. A BREZHNEVITE condemning another ideology for being homophobic. Remember, Russia didn't decriminalize homosexuality until 1993. :rolleyes:
Legal punishment of homosexuality was very infrequent in the Soviet Union and the USSR was thus progressive even on this issue compared to other nations of the world.

[RHIZOMES]

Legal punishment of homosexuality was very infrequent in the Soviet Union and the USSR was thus progressive even on this issue compared to other nations of the world.

Very infrequent still means some were. Can you find me a quote where Brezhnev, Khruschev or one of those Soviet leaders that lasted a few months before dying said something positive about homosexuality, or are you gonna seriously say that only because a few gays were prosecuted, means the Soviet Union was "progressive on the issue"?

[rebelworker]

The only branch of revolutionary socialism that has been historically at all interested in the liberation of Gay people has been anarchism. Period.

This dose not mean there havent been homophobic incidents (I dont know of any but Im sure there were lots of them).

To be more to the point though, in general Maoism, even in first world contries that had already experienced Gay liberation movement, has been behind the ball....

a lot of you are pretty apologetic on this shit, admit it and deal with it, dont be a fucking zealot and try to explain it away...

[Saorsa]

Originally Posted by Unicorn http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1182522#post1182522)
Legal punishment of homosexuality was very infrequent in the Soviet Union and the USSR was thus progressive even on this issue compared to other nations of the world.
Maybe when compared to Iran. Regardless of how often the law was enforced, the fact remains that homosexuality was illegal in the USSR. Stupid tankies...


To be honest, the maoist experience in Latin america wasn't particularly "progressive" either. THe major maoist group in latin america, which was Sendero Luminoso, was known for decimating whole villages (including unarmed children) to show the state what they were capable of doing (like how criminals murder friends and family of other criminals just because they are relatives). Sendero Luminoso henchmen were also very good at dragging trade union leaders and then shooting them in the head.

Lies and bourgeois propaganda. Which particular instances are you referring to when you make the outlandish claim that "Sendero Luminoso was known for decimating whole villages (including unarmed children) to show the state what they were capable of"? Perhaps it hadn't crossed you're mind, but exactly how would the CPC gain any advantage whatsoever from massacring the people amongst whom it's trying to build a support base? The army commited those massacres, and then blanmed in on the Maoist revolutionaries in order to discredit them.

And in the few cases where such crimes were commited by rogue elements within the CPC, the perpetrators were punished, often with death.


I always thought maoist in the third world seemed more like red coated robin hoods, with their "poor people's" slogans and their particular taste for violence. Maybe I am wrong, though.

Um, what exactly is so bad about putting forward slogans that call for the liberation of "poor people"? :confused: Are you opposed to struggling for and with the poor? Would you rather the Maoists put forward "rich people" slogans? :lol:

And how terrible of the Maoists do have a "particular taste" for directing violence towards the police, the military, the capitalists and landlords and reactionary forces in general. I mean, it's just so... violent! *shudders*

[Unicorn]

Very infrequent still means some were. Can you find me a quote where Brezhnev, Khruschev or one of those Soviet leaders that lasted a few months before dying said something positive about homosexuality, or are you gonna seriously say that only because a few gays were prosecuted, means the Soviet Union was "progressive on the issue"?
The material and social situation of homosexuals in the Soviet Union was good compared to capitalist countries in which homosexuals have been severely repressed. There were homosexuals in high ranks in the CPSU and they benefited from the best public health care system in the world.

[bezdomni]

Didn't bother to read through the bullshit in this thread, but I am pretty sure gay marriages have been performed among members of the PLA in Nepal.

If it wasn't Nepal, it was certainly the Philipines. Regardless, both organizations are members of the RIM...so even if this alleged line did exist among some members of the CPN(M) it is not the orientation of the RIM nor is it the line of the party as a whole.

This is an underhanded and unprincipled attack on the revolution in Nepal, and is anti-communist to the core.

[Devrim]

Lies and bourgeois propaganda. Which particular instances are you referring to when you make the outlandish claim that "Sendero Luminoso was known for decimating whole villages (including unarmed children) to show the state what they were capable of"? Perhaps it hadn't crossed you're mind, but exactly how would the CPC gain any advantage whatsoever from massacring the people amongst whom it's trying to build a support base? The army commited those massacres, and then blanmed in on the Maoist revolutionaries in order to discredit them.

And in the few cases where such crimes were commited by rogue elements within the CPC, the perpetrators were punished, often with death.

Let's see what Abimael Guzmán has to say on this;


In April 1983 Shining Path militants responded to the death of Olegario Curitomay by entering the province of Huancasancos and the towns of Yanaccollpa, Ataccara, Llacchua, Muylacruz, and Lucanamarca, and killing 69 people. Of those killed by the Shining Path eighteen of were children, including one who was only six months old.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) Also killed were eleven women, some of whom were pregnant.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) Eight of the victims were between fifty and seventy years old.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) Most victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also scalded villagers with boiling water.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) This was the first massacre by Shining Path of the peasant community. Abimael Guzmán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abimael_Guzm%C3%A1n), the founder and leader of the Shining Path, admitted that the Shining Path carried out the massacre and explained the rationale behind it in an interview with El Diario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Diario) , a pro-Shining Path newspaper based in Lima. In the interview, he said:"In the face of reactionary military actions... we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983."


On September 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_10), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002), Abimael Guzmán told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_%28Peru%29) "We, doctors, reiterate that we will not avoid our responsibility [for the Lucanamarca massacre]. I have mine, I'm the first one responsible, and I will never renounce my responsibility, that wouldn't make any sense.

Note that the quotes are from the leadership of Sendero Luminoso, and not the bourgeois press.

After this massacre:


Other incidents followed, such as the one in Hauyllo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauyllo&action=edit&redlink=1), Tambo District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambo_District), La Mar Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mar_Province), Ayacucho Department. In that community, Shining Path killed 47 peasants, including 14 children aged between four and fifteen.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#cite_note-20) Additional massacres by Shining Path occurred, such as the one in Marcas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcas&action=edit&redlink=1) on August 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_29), 1985 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#cite_note-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#cite_note-22)

Devrim

[Hiero]

Didn't bother to read through the bullshit in this thread, but I am pretty sure gay marriages have been performed among members of the PLA in Nepal.

If it wasn't Nepal, it was certainly the Philipines. Regardless, both organizations are members of the RIM...so even if this alleged line did exist among some members of the CPN(M) it is not the orientation of the RIM nor is it the line of the party as a whole.

This is an underhanded and unprincipled attack on the revolution in Nepal, and is anti-communist to the core.

It was in the Philippines, something people like Rebelworker like to ignore. The Communist Party of the Philippines is not a member of the RIM, they are a member of another international group.

[Colonello Buendia]

I don't think that this is an attack on maoism as a whole, I simply think this is a revolution which has plans for a progressive economy and health care system in a place where most people are still reactionary and anti homosexual. this includes the party leadership and the party itself. the same goes for the zapatistas,they've achieved certain socialist goals but the society remains reaqctionary on certain issues

[Saorsa]

Let's see what Abimael Guzmán has to say on this;

As I said, there were excesses carried out by rogue elements, and the perpetrators were punished. Was Gonzalo really going to denounce his own movement at a time when the People's War was swiftly gaining strength?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
On September 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_10), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002), Abimael Guzmán told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_%28Peru%29) "We, doctors, reiterate that we will not avoid our responsibility [for the Lucanamarca massacre]. I have mine, I'm the first one responsible, and I will never renounce my responsibility, that wouldn't make any sense.


Well this one can be automatically thrown away, as it comes from after he had been imprisoned. In Ireland there was a rule that when revolutionary leaders were imprisoned, they no longer had the right to issue any public orders(i.e. go on TV and call for a cease fire or whatever). It's one of the great flaws of the Peruvian People's War and the cult of jefismo that it was unable to do the same.

And even if we were to accept his statements from prison, all this shows is that he accepts that the CPC and the PGA commited a grievous error in Huancasancos. It does not outweigh the overwhelmingly positive nature of the People's War.

It's good to see that you're getting the hang of this "evidence" concept Devrim, but Wikipedia isn't exactly the most perfectly reliable of sources. Who knows, maybe you'll go even further from here and start using reliable anti-imperialist, progressive sources!

[Devrim]

It's good to see that you're getting the hang of this "evidence" concept Devrim,

Alastair, as I said before the reason I didn't produce any evidence on the other point was I wasn't at all interested in arguing it, particularly as you didn't seem to understand what I was saying.


but Wikipedia isn't exactly the most perfectly reliable of sources.

Britannica says it is as reliable as they are. That is not the point though. Are you disputing the events here?


and killing 69 people. Of those killed by the Shining Path eighteen of were children, including one who was only six months old.[1] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) Also killed were eleven women, some of whom were pregnant.[1] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) Eight of the victims were between fifty and seventy years old.[1] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-Huancasancos-0) Most victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also scalded villagers with boiling water.


And how are we to explain these events?

Like this:
As I said, there were excesses carried out by rogue elements, and the perpetrators were punished.

Or this:
we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983Devrim

[manic expression]

Some others I can think of are Jack Barnes and David North and their respective cults.

Anyway I like the definition given in another thread of cults and how it relates to various strands of Trotskyism:

You mean the US SWP? Interested in proving that? Back your ridiculous claims up: how is the American SWP a cult? I doubt you will.

Mujer Libre

Um, the working class is not homogenously made up of white, straight men. In order for the same discrimination faced by queer people (as well as women and people of colour) in today's society not to be perpetuated in a communist society, we need to combat these forms of discrimination as well as participating in class struggle.

They're not separate issues, they're fundamentally linked in the project of human liberation.

Can we please put a fork in this totalist politics rhetoric? The liberation of the working class is THE struggle that will change this world, nothing less and nothing more. There won't be any discrimination against anyone in a communist society, for a classless society is an oppression-less society, and that is precisely the point. Class struggle inherently eliminates such backward elements, and the experience of the Cuban Revolution proves this in spades.

The thing is that they ARE linked, but they are linked in a way that makes class struggle, by far, the most important issue of our time. To even mildly suggest that issues of identity politics have a similar value is insane, and unfortunately I have witnessed far too many on the "left" (SDS, I'm looking right at you) sink into this trap.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You mean the US SWP? Interested in proving that? Back your ridiculous claims up: how is the American SWP a cult? I doubt you will.

Mujer Libre


Can we please put a fork in this totalist politics rhetoric? The liberation of the working class is THE struggle that will change this world, nothing less and nothing more. There won't be any discrimination against anyone in a communist society, for a classless society is an oppression-less society, and that is precisely the point. Class struggle inherently eliminates such backward elements, and the experience of the Cuban Revolution proves this in spades.

The thing is that they ARE linked, but they are linked in a way that makes class struggle, by far, the most important issue of our time. To even mildly suggest that issues of identity politics have a similar value is insane, and unfortunately I have witnessed far too many on the "left" (SDS, I'm looking right at you) sink into this trap.


Funny that you use the Cuban revolution as a model. Seeing that the Cuban revolution is an great example of why we need to be solid on issues of race and gender. When they started rounding up and jailing gays, clearly something was wrong with the Cuban rev. It did not abolish all oppression. Not in the least.

[redguard2009]

Oh thank bejeesus the left has finally caught on to the ineffable evil of Maoism! For a moment there (re: 13 years) I was beginning to think their nefarious crimes would go unnoticed, despite the vigilance of those with the courage to point out their crimes since the beginning. And even before the beginning.

But really, leave it to [insert ideological subtype here] to completely ignore every past instance of the CPN(M) acting to liberalize views on homosexuality and protect gay rights, and then spontaneously wet themselves the moment an unsubstantiated article-slash-rumour to the contrary wretches itself from the rotting, puss-seeping womb of right-wing reactionism.

I wonder what the next horseshit-soaked miasma of unintelligence will have you guys giggling with glee and filled with an over-bloated sense of self-righteousness as you tack yet another "Maoist crime" to the end of the bottomless list of why Maoism is a force of pure evil.

And for you Maoists and Maoist-supporters: You do realize it's absolutely pointless to do anything other than berate and belittle these Commieheroes, don't you? No amount of arguing facts to the contrary is going to change any minds; the fact that they've come to the conclusions they have is evidence enough that impartiality is a rare quality 'round these parts. They've spent enough effort convincing themselves that this kind of trumped-up witchhunt rumourmill crap is worth believing that nothing you nor I can do will foil their aspirations.

[Saorsa]

And for you Maoists and Maoist-supporters: You do realize it's absolutely pointless to do anything other than berate and belittle these Commieheroes, don't you? No amount of arguing facts to the contrary is going to change any minds; the fact that they've come to the conclusions they have is evidence enough that impartiality is a rare quality 'round these parts. They've spent enough effort convincing themselves that this kind of trumped-up witchhunt rumourmill crap is worth believing that nothing you nor I can do will foil their aspirations.

We can but try... :glare: And if we put forward arguments that are based on factual evidence and consist of more than just "mE ThINk thS!!!", it makes us look good in comparison to them.

[progressive_lefty]

Disappointing. But I think we will have to leave it to them to figure out the errors of homophobia.

[Saorsa]

^ Why do you assume that this is true? And why do you ignore the massive gains the Maoists have won for gays, women, ethnic minorities and so on? Give the Maoists time before you start attacking them.

[bayano]

well, let's not just sit on our asses. leftists around the world can influence leftists who achieve power, as often happens with cuba and venezuela. there must be some means for leftists
who vow to stand in solidarity with nepal's successful maoists against imperialism to get the message that this is not a correct line, and that it is anti-liberatory. i have heard of queer nepalese activists, and i know there are many in neighboring india, so it would be interesting for activists who are well committed to nepal solidarity work to get in touch with them and await some instruction in how to support.