Results 1 to 20 of 51
Gay rights in DPRK - interesting stance
Was just browsing the Wiki and found a very interesting article. DPRK might have its flaws, but this bit is by far the most progressive official government stance on LGBT community I have ever seen.
Again, I say "official government stance", I have virtually no idea what is being done in practice.
Maybe some of you who are more knowledgeable on the LGBT laws around a world can clarify me. But does any country openly admits that homosexual people are genetically born just as us heterosexuals and thus are no different in any way?
The official government statement is as follows: "Due to tradition in Korean culture, it is not customary for individuals of any sexual orientation to engage in public displays of affection. As a country that has embraced science and rationalism, the DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect.
Homosexuals in the DPRK have never been subject to repression, as in many capitalist regimes around the world. However, North Koreans also place a lot of emphasis on social harmony and morals. Therefore, the DPRK rejects many characteristics of the popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity."
"Ideas do not need weapons, if they can convince the great masses." - Fidel Castro
[FONT=Verdana]some amateur leftist songs written by me: Brand new one: TOUR DE MARXISM , Stalingrad battle song , Greet us in Havana, Bolshevik Girl
cover stuff: [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Partisan (Leonard Cohen), Working class Hero (John Lennon)[/FONT]
Well, the government stance isn't that great either.
1) The fact that any public displays of affection are seen as wrong is not very good.
2) The popular gay culture in the West may be "classist, promiscuous, or consumerist" because that's how a very oppressed community found a way to escape from the reactionary bullshit around them. Also, many gays are not classist, promiscuous, or consumerist. That's usually a homophobic stereotype. This idea is based on the premise that all gays in the West are rich, white liberal snobs who go down to New York to buy designer clothes.
There are black, latino, asian and gays of every minority. There are working-class gays. There are anti-consumerist gays. And there are non-promiscuous gays (whatever that means, because kissing a man in public is more promiscuous for me than kissing a woman).
The DPRK is a state-capitalist regime, which prides itself in worshipping a dead Stalinist president. It is not progressive. It is backwards. It should be a disgrace in every leftist's eyes.
"Face the world like a roaring blaze, before all the tears begin to turn silent. Burn down everything that stands in our way. Bang the drum."
Neat to see that info, just goes to show the achievements of the Korean people in the DPRK.
Public displays of affection aren't seen as "wrong" like they're evil or anything, it's just not what people do in Korean culture. That's less of a political statement than a cultural one, and your conflation of the two is insensitive at best.
The government didn't blame homosexuals for reacting to oppression the way they have, they simply noted how gay communities in capitalist societies differ from the culture in socialist societies. And the government did NOT say that all LGBTs are "classist, promiscuous or consumerist", it specifically said that "popular gay culture" at large in capitalist countries glorifies certain aspects over others, which is a valid point.
Don't try to stretch the DPRK's position out of context. You're ascribing values and motivations (and words) to the DPRK that simply have no basis here. What you're doing would be like watching an episode of the Boondocks that criticizes some aspects of Black culture in America and saying "the Boondocks is saying that most Black people are stupid and lazy!" It's just not like that.
And none of that contradicts what the DPRK was saying, which was not directed towards LGBT individuals AT ALL. Once again, your perspective is hopelessly warped because you desperately want to convince yourself of the following:
I knew it was coming sooner or later, the self-satisfied socialist-bashing we're all too familiar with. Sorry, but this kind of drivel isn't worth a response, in no small part because it would distract us from how mistaken you are on the important points above.
I generally agree with North Korea. manic expression's post is glorious and correct.
Formerly zenga zenga !
For heaven's sake, how can that possibly be seen as the "most progressive in the world"? The majority of Governments these days recognise homosexuality is simply something you are born with.
Also, according to those who have left North Korea (I know, I know, apologists will claim they have no credibility and only Government propaganda sources are to be believed), the issue is in fact simply not discussed, many didn't even realise homosexuality exists until they reached South Korea or China or wherever.
As far as I know, the family exists in North Korea. It is not possible for either women or homosexuals to be emancipated if the family still exists given that the material roots of homophobia lie in the fact that the identity and behaviour of homosexuals does not conform to the widespread perception that the family is the only legitimate or natural way of organizing society and the raising of children, a perception that is supported both by deliberate argumentation on the part of states and other bodies, as well as the simple fact that the vast majority of people are brought up within the confines of a patriarchial family and hence are liable to believe that it is natural unless they are convinced otherwise, or later have experiences of living outside the family for long periods of time. The abolition of homophobia can only come about as a result of the abolition of the family, which can in turn only come about as a result of the overthrow of capitalism, given how dependent the bourgeoisie is on the family, which explains why we always hear governments complaning about the growing numbers of single-parent families and umarried parents etc. It may be the case that North Korea's laws are not shockingly reactionary but as Dem. points out in this respect they are not that different from most other countries around the world where homosexuality has also been legalized and it does not say much about the existence of homophobic attitudes which are bound up with the existence of the family.
Although gay rights are not the be all and end all of liberty in socialist states, they are certainly important, I've read something similar to this regarding gay rights in the DPRK, and there is no two ways about it, they certainly do have one of the most progressive stances on sexuality in modern history. Long live the totalitarian Stalinist state.
Look, most North Koreans who defect are farmers on the country side that are starving due to droughts, or "prison camp" refugees. I doubt anyone would even mention homosexuality in this region- and even in Pyongyang, I doubt it is almost in existence, but that doesn't change the government's stance.
What science is that? How have they come to recognise it as a "genetic trait"? There is no conclusive evidence that confirms that...
What?
Homosexuality exists everywhere at the same rate wherever you go. To say that they don't know about it because it isn't there is absolutely absurd.
The country sides villages in the DPRK are very much isolated and only cater to one or two families. Due to droughts, famine, etc, these people are the ones who usually defect. With that said, it's only logical that the chance of a defector knowing about homosexuality is low.What?
Homosexuality exists everywhere at the same rate wherever you go. To say that they don't know about it because it isn't there is absolutely absurd.
Also, I'd love a reference for your post:
Thanks.
More importantly, the government's stance seems to infer that if it could somehow be proved that homosexuality was a choice then it would be acceptable to condemn it and punish those who are caught having sex with someone of the same gender - surely the stance of socialists should be that whether it is a matter of choice or genetics is in fact completely irrelevant because neither the state nor the community has any right to condemn part of someone's identity or tell two consenting individuals what they should and should not be allowed to do, in terms of sexual interaction.
I don't see how this is any more progressive than the stance of the Dutch, French, Finnish, Danish, Belgian etc. governments?
It's because those backwards Asians are generally reactionary in contrast to the glory of the European Enlightenment, so when they do poke their noses into modernity, we have to applaud them for it.
Confusing Trots with Cliffites there
Can you read?I'm sure these "enlightened" European imperialist governments are more progressive than DPRK according to Trotkyists. Or perhaps they're all the same old capitalist state.
I asked how the stance of the DPRK on homosexuality is more progressive than the stances of the other states I mentioned.
If you can answer it then do so. If you can't, then don't troll and leave your defense of the socialist utopia elsewhere where it may be desired.
I can't speak for LZ, but the fact that this legislation has been implemented in many other countries around the world indicates that allowing two people of the same gender to have sex with each other should not be taken of evidence of a country being socialist or having a great stance on gay rights, especially when that country has not yet succeeded in abolishing the patriarchal family - which is a central feature of all class societies (capitalism in particular, because the family allows for the daily renewal of the labour force at no cost to the bourgeoisie, and is also useful for the bourgeoisie in terms of selling commodities, because if communities were not divided into families then it would not be necessary to buy commodities such as household appliances and food items in such large quantities, as these goods would be shared by the entire community, a much more rational way of doing things if you think about it) and the basis of the oppression of both women and homosexuals. The fact that people are so eager to draw attention to the DPRK not banning homosexuality suggests that they expect non-western countries to be reactionary when it comes to these issues, which is obviously a rather chauvinist assertion.
The fact that universal healthcare exists in other countries besides Cuba indicates that universal healthcare, whilst being an important gain and something the working class should defend, has nothing to do with socialism as such, and so is compatible with capitalism. In this sense it is similar to other demands that have been obtained under capitalism such as the eight-hour day, the right of workers to unionize, as well as other rights that are not directly connected to the workplace, such as a woman's right to abortion. What distinguishes socialism from capitalism is the abolition of commodity production and workers having democratic control of the means of production, neither of which exist in Cuba, or any of the other countries that you regard as socialist, including North Korea, and China, as in all of these countries workers sell their labour power as a commodity to the state, which functions as the equivalent of the bourgeoisie, and do not have control over how their workplaces are organized, or how investment resources are allocated, and certainly do not the right to criticize the state or the prevailing economic system without being subject to repression.
I take it that you believe the working class is the ruling class in these societies. When exactly did workers seize control of the means of production and establish institutions of working-class rule, i.e. raise themselves to the position of the ruling class, in your opinion?
So if you don't think North Korea is a state under the rule of the working class, and if you also think that "Cuba and North Korea are not bourgeois states", that is, states that protect the wealth and power of a minority, then, given that the Marxist theory of the state holds that all states are instruments of class oppression, used to further and protect the interests of a particular class, and incapable of being used to pursue the interests of society as a whole due to the irreconcilable nature of class antagonisms, in your view, which class is the ruling class in North Korea?
In the same vein, what is the mode of production in North Korea and Cuba? What it is about these states (apart from you saying they are "progressive" which is too vague) that makes them non-capitalist?
It seems a bit strange to accuse any moderator of being liberal when you seem to hold to what can justifiably be described as a liberal view of the state.
What Bob said, but it's not surprising that someone like you would take such huge leaps in logic and reading comprehension to say something that's got nothing to do with the matter at hand.
If anyone is degeneration discussions it's you and your "debating tactics".
As one would suspect, opinions would be divided.
So why did I call the N.Korean recognition of Gay people the most advanced in the world?
It's very simple really - because it IS a totalitarian state !
The official statement of DPRK government weights much more then the so called "modern European views". DPRK is a totalitarian state and such states do as they please. The "Great Leader" Kim could've easily made the law that all Gay people must be catapulted into the orbit, or that all people under 21 must walk on their feet.
Instead they made a progresive stance that is made solely upon the idea that it is the right thing to do. A humanistic and socialist value.
How is this different from capitalist West? Completely different !
Just go ask Mr. Obama. - is he really that gay friendly kinda of guy? Yeah, my ass.
His camp figured the statistics - millions of American citizens are Gay and Bisexuals - big horde of voters.
Same thing goes on in Europe.
The whole "respect the differences" under capitalism is bollocks ! Just a sharade that (again) benefits the small ruling minority.
Don't want to go into details, but I'm very sure that a complex economic formula will eventually show that more profits will be made with sexual diversifed nation then with a sexually oppresed one.
Yes, no matter how odd it sounds from time to time, but virtually everything that changes in our capitalist systems is always directed towards a single goal - profit.
That is the great sexual revolution in the west - sharade. Besides, laws in capitalism serve only the leaders. Every liberal European gay-friendly country always has equally fascist organizations which beat up, oppres and even kill gay people simply because they are gay.
Again, I point out that the paragraph from DPRK goverment statement is simply that - a goverment statement.
But, if it would go a step further, say - to openly allow gay marriages. I doubt that any gay couple in Pyongyang would be physicaly or verbaly attacked for being gay.
Why? Cause you would be breaking the law, and breaking the law in DPRK is like spitting into a face of the "dear leader".
Just to make clear, I'm not a totalitarian supporter. But in this small aspect, I still stand by my first argument - the specificity of the ruling goverment in DPRK makes their official LGBT policies most advanced in the world.
Then again, this could mean shit when it comes to practice. But none of us really knows nothing when it comes to DPRK practices in real life. So all we can do is speculate.
(if you've just came back from a month long vaccation in N.Korea, then please come out and set this debate straight)
Anti DPRK propaganda, which is massive, can not provide any answers to our questions.
"Ideas do not need weapons, if they can convince the great masses." - Fidel Castro
[FONT=Verdana]some amateur leftist songs written by me: Brand new one: TOUR DE MARXISM , Stalingrad battle song , Greet us in Havana, Bolshevik Girl
cover stuff: [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Partisan (Leonard Cohen), Working class Hero (John Lennon)[/FONT]
COMMUNISM !