Homosexuality and Communism

[khlib]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin? Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement? I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

[Mind_Zenith]

Stalin actually implemented a lot of socially conservative (or what might be considered conservative by modern meanings) policies: apart from outlawing homosexuality to some extent (I'm not sure whether he outlawed private acts or not), I can also remember reading about how he made divorce difficult to attain compared to pre-Stalin Leninist policies. I think that was just the society he came from; modern Marxist-Leninist, some of whom look up to Stalin without being exactly Stalinist, are accepting of LGBTI people, and it's rare to find a homophobe among their ranks. But, of course, there are homophobes in EVERY political group (I'd say far less in the socialist left, but that's me).

I would also say that some Socialists downplay "queer" identity politics because they believe the issues facing LGBTI people can be fixed by ridding/reforming Capitalism. I come from a totally different perspective, where short term reforms help revolution to come about; but it's undeniable that many socialists don't see short-term reforms as useful. At the same time, there could be some socialists who just don't like gay people; that might have to be an unfortunate reality the Comrades will have to face. But, in my experience, I really haven't found any of the sort. Obviously you have though, and that's not a good thing at all.

[Veovis]

From what I read, the party line was that it was indicative of "bourgeois decadence."

[DaringMehring]

The shameful Stalinist attacks on homosexuality (that it was bourgeois, that fascism was interlinked with homosexuality), derive ultimately from the backward conditions of the Stalinist countries. Combined with slavish submission to the Party line in the more advanced countries, and the result was people being kicked out of various CPs for being gay. I know one person from the CPUSA who told me how he used to be part of comissions in the 70s that investigated a suspect member's sexuality and then ousted them if they were in fact gay.

This can be contrasted to the earlier post-revolutionary Bolshevik position on homosexuality which was remarkably tolerant and modern, for a backward country in 1920. But ideology can only survive so long in the face of overwhelming social and material force.

But today, I think every sane socialist recognizes the fight for homosexual equality is part of the fight for equality for all people, as it always has been.

[AnonymousOne]

but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

That's because they aren't, they're one and the same. I'll quote myself from the Che thread:

You don't believe that LGBTQ+ rights are important to revolutionary struggle. Here's the thing, the capitalist class must continue to divide the working class in order to maintain a system where 1% own more than the bottom 90%. They use discrimination and hatred as a way to distract the population from the crisis of their system. In 2004, Bush and the Republicans used gay marriage as an issue to divert people’s attention away from the wars abroad and the harshness of life facing the working class here.

The middle class leadership of the LGBT political organizations put all their focus on the struggle for democratic rights. LGBT workers and youth need to see that the real struggle for genuine and full equality can only truly be won as part of a united working class movement, with the slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all!”

That's why Queer Rights matter. Because the working class needs to unite, and we can't have a united working class if we divide ourselves by sexuality, race, religion, w/e.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Homosexuality was banned in Cuba and SU because the ruling classes of those states did not care about the welfare or interests of the people, they just wanted to secure their own position of power

Which modern leftists are against the gay rights struggle? Obama? Bourgeois liberals are not modern leftists
Everyone who is against the LBGTQ struggle is just attempting to create another dimension of "us vs them"

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?

Restrictions on homosexuality were tossed out during the Russian Revolution but the USSR rulers later re-instated attacks on homosexuality - much for the same reasons other capitalist regimes do so - to scapegoat and threaten people and promote conformity to social norms that suit the needs of the status quo. Specifically critics of the party were labeled as homosexuals much like in the McCarthy era in the US. Also hostility to homosexuality was part of a larger push to promote the nuclear family and increase child-birth. Young women birthing the next generation of toilers was patriotic, so anything else obviously was not patriotic.

Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement?

Are they? I know of some and that's too many, but on the whole modern leftists played a big part of the gay lib movement and many of the movements of the 1970s. There are some though and the RCP until recently said that homosexuality was "bourgoise decadence" but leftists in the US also created some of the first political groups dedicated to LGBT rights even in the time before Stonewall.

Personally I think that the leftists who support or supported so-called communist countries which implemented anti-gay policies and found political justifications for their policies are often the ones who then took these bad political ideas and applied them domestically.

I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

They're not, they're deeply connected. I disagree with identity politics as a viable strategy for liberation, but I also disagree with some of the crude class-reductionism of some Marxists and anarchists that suggest that we have to wait until capitalism is destroyed before oppression can also be destroyed. IMO, lgbt-liberation, women's-liberation, black-lib etc are ALL class struggles ultimately and so if someone fights for lgbt-lib but not against the current organization of society (i.e. capitalism) then they will ultimately not be able to achieve liberation. But if people try and promote a united working class rule of society, but there is inequality and unaddressed divisions among working class people (i.e. racism, sexism, etc) then worker's won't be able to win liberation.

[jake williams]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin?

I think it's a fairly complicated combination of factors and I think it's really stupid (not naming names) to try to talk about it in some simplistic way.

One of the major reasons has to do with the fact that it's common, not to say excusable, that societies facing war, especially when it entails killing millions of people and millions of young people in particular, often respond by trying to shore up the family as a reproductive unit. We need babies (for public labour, and to look after our suffering families); we need them raised in healthy, stable families; we need to defend the heterosexual family as an institution. It's the wrong perspective for those, along with other socialist or semi-socialist states to take, but there's a reason that perspective was taken then, and not before, and why it was corrected after. The horrors exacted upon Eastern Europe by the Nazis are difficult to explain or comprehend. That the population would retreat into the safety of the "traditional family" shouldn't be surprising, even if we're more than right to disagree with it now, and even to condemn the fact that they took that position then.

I also think it probably represents some more general subjective failures in the democratization of Soviet society and the marginalization of reactionary views: religious, racist, nationalist, sexist and homophobic. All of which we see today in Russia and other former Soviet states, often in part coming from the remnants of the socialist parties. These tendencies exist in all societies and it takes time, and effort, to get rid of them. We need to fight them at all times, whenever we deal with them in our own lives, organizations and societies, but in retrospect we shouldn't be shocked that they were not totally overcome instantly.

For most of its history the Soviet Union (including, arguably, while homosexuality was being banned) and its socialist allies had much more progressive positions on gender and sexuality than did the advanced capitalist countries (or any others). These were still societies where, generally speaking, women had civil and economic rights that simply did not exist elsewhere. Reactionary policies like banning homosexuality are utterly reprehensible and were unacceptable then as they are today, but we shouldn't talk about this out of historical context, as if it somehow comes to us as a shock that a political leadership born in the 19th century has more conservative views about gender and family than we do today.

Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement?

I think there's two categories of people you could be talking about which are very different and need to be regarded as such.

First, there are a lot of outright homophobes, whether they actually find homosexuality reprehensible or whether they simply wish queer activism marginalized from political struggle. Whatever its form, this sort of politics is absolutely reprehensible and needs to be fought. I also think, however, while it's common in much of the world. it's pretty rare in Western Europe or North America (I can't speak to Japan), including on this forum. (This last point is largely from personal experience but I think it's generally true, if for complicated reasons.)

What I think you'll see more often is an objection to the political and class character of the mainstream gay rights movements; not the actual existence of gay rights movements themselves. It's not wrong that increasingly gay politics has been deradicalized, and the right wing is actively trying to depoliticize the movement, regularly winning disturbing victories. The movement we have today simply isn't the movement behind Stonewall, for a lot of reasons we could go into if you'd like. But the fact remains that the visible mainstream of the gay rights movement is liberal and reformist at best, anti-political and even reactionary at worst.

Homophobia (and more broadly, heteronormativity and enforcement of traditional gender, sexuality and family) is a very real problem for ourselves, our societies and our class, and needs to be fought. The struggle for gay rights needs to be a part of our movement. Those elements of the gay rights movement which try to attack us our depoliticize the movement need to be fought too, but those parts which use the struggle for gay rights as one part of an advance to better society - and they do exist - need to be supported and strengthened.

[Salabra]

Can anyone explain to me why homosexuality was banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin? Also, why are so many modern leftists against the gay rights movement? I have heard a lot of criticism from fellow comrades over the issue of "identity politics" and putting sexual identity before proletarian identity and class struggle, but I don't see how these two movements are mutually exclusive.

Engels’ whole discussion of sexuality assumes that heterosexuality is not only the ‘norm’ but ‘normal’ — he waxes eloquent on the “abominable practice of sodomy.”

Many modern leftists copy Stalin in regarding homosexuality as “bourgeois decadence,” while those who tail petty-bourgeois ‘anti-imperialist’ movements (particularly those based on religion) despise it as ‘Western,’ ‘imperialist’ or going against the will of somebody’s invisible friend.

And many leftists are suspicious of LGBT politics, if, like traditional feminism, they attempt to unite ‘queer’ folk across class lines. Fortunately it is possible to be both socialist-feminist and socialist-gay.

The horrors exacted upon Eastern Europe by the Nazis are difficult to explain or comprehend. That the population would retreat into the safety of the "traditional family" shouldn't be surprising

I think you’ll find that the criminalization of homosexuality, like the bans on abortion and divorce, came before WWII. Interestingly, like Moses, Stalin only criminalized male homosexuality.

Homophobia (and more broadly, heteronormativity and enforcement of traditional gender, sexuality and family) is a very real problem for ourselves, our societies and our class, and needs to be fought. The struggle for gay rights needs to be a part of our movement. Those elements of the gay rights movement which try to attack us our depoliticize the movement need to be fought too, but those parts which use the struggle for gay rights as one part of an advance to better society - and they do exist - need to be supported and strengthened.

Well said (with the qualification mentioned above).

[RED DAVE]

I think it's a fairly complicated combination of factors and I think it's really stupid (not naming names) to try to talk about it in some simplistic way.

Here comes the apologetics.

One of the major reasons has to do with the fact that it's common, not to say excusable, that societies facing war, especially when it entails killing millions of people and millions of young people in particular, often respond by trying to shore up the family as a reproductive unit.

Reactionary swill. Also, at the time that Stalin and his ilk reinstated recriminalized homosexuality, the USSR was not facing war. So knock off the bullshit.

We need babies (for public labour, and to look after our suffering families); we need them raised in healthy, stable families; we need to defend the heterosexual family as an institution.

Reactionary swill. This was part of the Stalinist line in the 1930s. It was eerily similar to that of the nazis.

It's the wrong perspective for those, along with other socialist or semi-socialist states to take, but there's a reason that perspective was taken then, and not before, and why it was corrected after.

Yes, there was a reason. The reason was that promulgating hatred and fear of homosexuality is part of a general process of promulgating hatred and fear of freedom. Stalin and his ilk were in the process of liquidating the world's first (though severely troubled) workers state. What better tools than hatred and fear.

The horrors exacted upon Eastern Europe by the Nazis are difficult to explain or comprehend. That the population would retreat into the safety of the "traditional family" shouldn't be surprising, even if we're more than right to disagree with it now, and even to condemn the fact that they took that position then.

Sheer unadulterated bullshit and apologetics for Stalinism. The laws against homosexuality were instituted about 11 years before WWII.

I also think it probably represents some more general subjective failures in the democratization of Soviet society and the marginalization of reactionary views: religious, racist, nationalist, sexist and homophobic.

Do you know what "marginalization means"? It means some like "pushing to the margin" or "minimalizing." This wasn't the marginalization of reactionary views: this was the creation and propagation of reactions views.

All of which we see today in Russia and other former Soviet states, often in part coming from the remnants of the socialist parties.

The proud legacy of Stalinism.

These tendencies exist in all societies and it takes time, and effort, to get rid of them.

And the Bolsheviks made a great start until the institution of Stalinism.

We need to fight them at all times, whenever we deal with them in our own lives, organizations and societies, but in retrospect we shouldn't be shocked that they were not totally overcome instantly.

No one is talking about overcoming instantly. We are talking about conscious and deliberate reactionary politics by a so-called Marxist tendency that had every reason to know better.

For most of its history the Soviet Union (including, arguably, while homosexuality was being banned) and its socialist allies had much more progressive positions on gender and sexuality than did the advanced capitalist countries (or any others).

First of all, it was a mixed bag. Second of all, this makes their stance on homosexuality even less excusable.

These were still societies where, generally speaking, women had civil and economic rights that simply did not exist elsewhere. Reactionary policies like banning homosexuality are utterly reprehensible and were unacceptable then as they are today

Okay.

but

Here comes the apologetic bullshit.

we shouldn't talk about this out of historical context, as if it somehow comes to us as a shock that a political leadership born in the 19th century has more conservative views about gender and family than we do today.

Why not? These were Bolsheviks: the most advanced political tendency in the world. The people who led the Russian Revolution and who abolished laws against homosexuality. It should come as a terrible shock that this policy was reversed.

I think there's two categories of people you could be talking about which are very different and need to be regarded as such.

Here comes more bullshit.

First, there are a lot of outright homophobes, whether they actually find homosexuality reprehensible or whether they simply wish queer activism marginalized from political struggle. Whatever its form, this sort of politics is absolutely reprehensible and needs to be fought. I also think, however, while it's common in much of the world. it's pretty rare in Western Europe or North America (I can't speak to Japan), including on this forum. (This last point is largely from personal experience but I think it's generally true, if for complicated reasons.)

Okay.

What I think you'll see more often is an objection to the political and class character of the mainstream gay rights movements; not the actual existence of gay rights movements themselves. It's not wrong that increasingly gay politics has been deradicalized, and the right wing is actively trying to depoliticize the movement, regularly winning disturbing victories. The movement we have today simply isn't the movement behind Stonewall, for a lot of reasons we could go into if you'd like. But the fact remains that the visible mainstream of the gay rights movement is liberal and reformist at best, anti-political and even reactionary at worst.

Blowing smoke. No one is arguing about this. The issue is the actions of the Stalinists against homosexuals in the USSR.

Homophobia (and more broadly, heteronormativity and enforcement of traditional gender, sexuality and family) is a very real problem for ourselves, our societies and our class, and needs to be fought. The struggle for gay rights needs to be a part of our movement. Those elements of the gay rights movement which try to attack us our depoliticize the movement need to be fought too, but those parts which use the struggle for gay rights as one part of an advance to better society - and they do exist - need to be supported and strengthened.

Yeah. Yeah. But what about what the Stalinists did, which is the real issue. You can twist and turn all you want, but you can't get away from history.

RED DAVE

[Aurora]

Trotskyists generally consider the banning of homosexuality to be part of a wider degeneration of the gains of the revolution, often called thermidor after the similar phase in the french revolution where the most radical gains where rolled back, it's no coincidence that homosexuality and abortion were banned and divorce was made much more difficult at the same time the old Bolsheviks were being executed en masse.
Without the revolution spreading and the economic and cultural level of Russia being increased massively under the democratic control of the working class it was inevitable that the revolution would stagnate and fall back to the then capitalist norms of family.

Almost all communists today are entirely supportive of the gay rights movement, off the top of my head i can't think of a group that isn't in the most advanced capitalist countries, in the less developed countries there is more of a problem which seems to be mainly around the old moscow affiliated parties and their splinters.

About identity politics, in general communists view racism, sexism and homophobia as institutions that are useful in some shape or form to capitalism, lowering wages, waging war, turning worker against worker etc so naturally the complete elimination of these problems lies in uniting workers as workers to overthrow capitalism. This doesn't mean that we don't fight for reforms, on the contrary fighting for gay rights is incredibly important because it breaks down the barriers that are placed between us. But i don't have any illusions that homophobia can be reformed out of capitalism any more than private property or wages can.

[jake williams]

I think you’ll find that the criminalization of homosexuality, like the bans on abortion and divorce, came before WWII.

For what it's worth I'd written that in the context of having read about family/gender policy in the GDR. Regarding the laws brought in in the 30s, not that the SU was at peace, but yeah, for obvious reasons they weren't brought in response to World War II. What I think we do have to be able to explain however is why the laws remained for some time. I find explanations that Stalin personally reached from beyond the grave to try to make people suffer unconvincing. I think the reasoning I suggested is problematic (to say the least), but I'd be surprised if it wasn't a big part of the actual reasoning used by the people who maintained and implemented a broad set of policies of which banning homosexuality was only one part.

RD: I'm not trying to deny that there were specific instances where homophobia was used as a political weapon in factional fights and where that happened it's utterly repugnant, not to say that there are cases of acceptable homophobia. My point is that there is a broad set of backward policies relating to gender, sexuality and family life and to try to separate out gay marriage in particular is a very limited way to look at things, as is blaming everything personally on Stalin.

Blowing smoke. No one is arguing about this. The issue is the actions of the Stalinists against homosexuals in the USSR.

...

Yeah. Yeah. But what about what the Stalinists did, which is the real issue. You can twist and turn all you want, but you can't get away from history.

Well no actually, there were two questions, one about history and one about the general situation today of the relationship between the left today in general and the gay rights movement. The latter has virtually nothing to do with Stalin. I can't say I don't think that if you actually had something useful to say about history or politics you'd find a bit better explanations for major historical problems than Stalin's personal evilness.

[Nox]

I think I also said this on a thread asking a similar question,

My guess is that it was a conditional decision made by Stalin to help increase the size of the workforce needed to support the industrialisation.

Also I agree with jammoe that it may have been a pre-war choice because Stalin knew that the rise of fascism in Germany meant that shit was going to hit the fan (war was inevitable).

I do not agree with his choice, it was not worth it for the tiny difference it would have made.

[HEAD ICE]

It should be noted that the repeal and legalization (not mere 'decriminalization') of same-sex relations in pre-Stalinist USSR was a deliberate and conscious decision of the Soviet state. Many Marxist revisionists (Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists) say that same sex activity was legal only by the virtue of the total tossing away of Napoleonic law. If you search this topic on RevLeft you can see this argument being forwarded, along with the nudge-nudge-wink-wink undertones that homosexuality is a 'western issue.'

Laws against sodomy and same sex relations were done away with by the doing away with Napoleonic law. But it was also conscious policy on the part of the Russia. The USSR Commissar of Health, N.A. Semashko and other Bolsheviks visited advocates of legalization of homosexuality in Berlin and spoke in favor of it on behalf of Russia. I don't have any direct quotes or sources but a google search should give you enough.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"[Soviet legislation] declares 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. Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against morality--Soviet legislation treats these exactly as so-called 'natural' intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters." - Dr. Grigorii Batkis (director Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene), The Sexual Revolution in Russia, 1923. [Emphasis in original]

I don't think there was some secret plot by Stalin to become leader and enact some "family values" legislation. Social forces shaped social policy. The reintroduction of reactionary social policies came along with real, underlying changes. It's no coincidence that abortion, homosexuality and prostitution were criminalized as the bureaucracy firmly secured its grip on power.

[North Star]

Stalinists don't hold a monopoly on anti-gay sentiment in the socialist movement. Orthodox Trotskyist movements like Militant were also dismissive of gay rights, and I think it was only in the 1990's that both the CWI and IMT changed its line under pressure from its young rank and file. I know for a fact that there are still IMT leaders that are dismissive of gays.

[RED DAVE]

RD: I'm not trying to deny that there were specific instances where homophobia was used as a political weapon in factional fights and where that happened it's utterly repugnant, not to say that there are cases of acceptable homophobia. My point is that there is a broad set of backward policies relating to gender, sexuality and family life and to try to separate out gay marriage in particular is a very limited way to look at things, as is blaming everything personally on Stalin.

I only separate it out because that's what this thread is all about. Yes, the generally reactionary nature of Stalinism on the teneral issues of "gender, sexuality and family life" are clear as a whole, with their stance on homosexuality being one good example of this.

Well no actually, there were two questions, one about history and one about the general situation today of the relationship between the left today in general and the gay rights movement.

With regard to the present, the Left, by and large, has got its act together with regard to the gay rights issue and the gay movement.

The latter has virtually nothing to do with Stalin. I can't say I don't think that if you actually had something useful to say about history or politics you'd find a bit better explanations for major historical problems than Stalin's personal evilness.

Comrade, I did not write about Stalin. I wrote about Stalinism.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Stalinists don't hold a monopoly on anti-gay sentiment in the socialist movement. Orthodox Trotskyist movements like Militant were also dismissive of gay rights, and I think it was only in the 1990's that both the CWI and IMT changed its line under pressure from its young rank and file. I know for a fact that there are still IMT leaders that are dismissive of gays.

Absolutely.

So what does that mean? Does that mean they should be forgiven or receive the same amount of scorn?

Also remember that "Leninism" in all its varieties is not the be all and end all of opposition to capitalism.

[North Star]

Absolutely.

So what does that mean? Does that mean they should be forgiven or receive the same amount of scorn?

Also remember that "Leninism" in all its varieties is not the be all and end all of opposition to capitalism.

Well it means a number of things. First revolutionaries need examine if their line enables liberation from all forms of oppression, not just the rule of capital. Second it shows a weakness in "Leninist" movements. Though I feel the Stalinist response was due to social conservatism and wishing to promote population growth, I think the homophobia of Trotskyist groups comes from the workerism of some of them. CWI/IMT are certainly workerist. I'm not sure what Trotsky has said about homosexuality so maybe it comes from him. If that's the case it's certainly something to remember next time someone claims "If only Trotsky had led the USSR..." Beyond "Leninism" there's been Bakunin's antisemitism and Proudhon's support for the traditional families. These things in themselves do not negate anarchism or prove it to be faulty but shows that revolutionaries of all types must be critically studying all relationships in society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All of that would be well and fine if the October Revolution hadn't declared all consensual sexual activity to be a private matter in 1917. Anyone coming after that has a real hard time calling their reactionary positions "a product of the time" or of "workerism" or whatever.