No.3990[Last 50 Posts]
A historical survey of Marxism and queer life, from the young Soviet Union to Stalinist homophobia.
For decades, common sense dictated that Marxism focused solely on class antagonisms and ignored other forms of oppression, like the oppression of women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people. Indeed, many of those claiming the mantle of Marxism, from those in the Stalinist tradition to the social democratic tradition — including even the present-day Democratic Socialists of America — downplayed the importance of special oppression and maintained an economistic strategy that benefited only the upper strata of the working class. But the reactionary positions of Stalinism and social democracy on sexual and gender oppression do not reflect the legacy of Marxism in the slightest, as a look into the history of the revolutionary workers movement shows. Rather, revolutionary socialism in Russia, with the October Revolution, led the way toward a radical change in the material and ideological foundations of LGBTQ+ discrimination. Reactionary deviations occurred when parties and organizations, despite their socialist self-image, abandoned the revolutionary horizon and tried to come to terms with the capitalist world. This historical insight can help us clarify what kind of politics we need for emancipation today with a new onslaught of attacks on the rights of queer people, particularly in the United States, the world’s most advanced capitalist “democracy.”
The Bolshevik Advance
In the second half of the 19th century, a gay scene formed in Russia’s two most important cities, Saint Petersburg and Moscow. It created places for socializing, such as bathhouses; linguistic codes (tetki, which roughly translates as “auntie,” a word that was applied to homosexual men, both by them and others); elements of a dress code; and, at least in private spaces, cross-dressing. As historian Dan Healey describes in his influential work on the history of homosexuality in revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union, Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia, it would be “heterosexist and nationalist chauvinism to claim that in tsarist Russia or in the USSR, this homosexual subculture was imported from abroad or created by Communist misrule.”1
At the same time, same-sex intercourse between men was illegal under the rules of the Orthodox Church. Until 1917, consensual “sodomy” was punishable by exile to Siberia. But the this threat was unevenly realized. The abolition of the czarist legal codes in 1917 meant the de facto decriminalization of homosexuality, and with the adoption of a new code in 1922, references to “sodomy” disappeared from the official legal texts of the young Soviet state. After revolutionary 18th-century France, the Soviet Union was thus one of the first states in the world to legalize homosexuality. In the Weimar Republic, meanwhile, the infamous paragraph 175 from the Kaiserreich, criminalizing homosexuality, remained in force before it was tightened under fascism and ultimately abolished in the Federal Republic only in 1994 — a lifetime after decriminalization in the Soviet Union.
Women who entered into romantic or sexual relationships with other women had less access to the public sphere in Russia and accordingly found it more difficult to form a cohesive community. Fewer sources exist on this issue, since same-sex intercourse between women was not punishable and therefore does not show up, for instance, in court records. Nevertheless, economically independent women in particular succeeded in forming networks and entering into relationships beyond the traditional heterosexual family. In the military climate of the Civil War years after the October Revolution, many women adopted a masculine style, which on the one hand signaled a loyalty to the Revolution and a willingness to defend it, but on the other hand could also be code for homosexual women to attract other women. The lines to transsexuality were blurry sometimes. In response to a survey on sexuality at Moscow’s Sverdlov University in 1923, one answer was “I want to be a man, I impatiently await scientific discoveries of castration and grafting of male organs (glands).”2 Such operations were indeed performed in the 1920s, even if their success was doubtful owing to still rudimentary methods. Even apart from medical interventions, many took advantage of the opportunity to change their gender identity. They had appropriate identification documents issued, adopted male variants of their old names, and changed their clothing and appearance. This was accompanied by lively scientific debates about the origin and nature of homosexuality and gender, which were widely considered to be closely related. Biologist Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov asserted, “Of course, there is no intermediate sex, but rather an infinite quantity of intermediate sexes.”3
Evgenii Fedorovich M. began to assume a male identity in 1915, when he was 17 years old. During the revolution he had his name changed in the official documents and began to work in the secret service. In 1922, with the new documents, Yevgeny married a woman who, in the sources, is named S. Even after the change of identity became known; a local court case in which the couple stood accused of a “crime against nature” failed, and the marriage persisted. The court ruled the union legal because it was mutually consensual — the gender identity of the spouses was irrelevant. The couple continued to live together as a family for several years with a child that S. gave birth to after an affair with a colleague.4 The revolutionary awakening and the rejection of traditional norms were not only represented by elite Bolsheviks but also allowed people like Yevgeny an unprecedented degree of self-determination.
Bourgeois historical scholarship has occasionally claimed that the Bolsheviks did not intend to legalize homosexuality at all by abolishing the czarist legal codes. Simon Karlinsky, for example, claimed that the October Revolution reversed and negated the advances for gay rights achieved in the revolutions of 1905 and of February 1917, passing over the first decriminalization of “sodomy” as an aside.5 Healey, however, comes to the following, unequivocal conclusion based on the files of the Commissariat of Justice, which became accessible with the opening of the Soviet archives in 1991:
While these documents do not discuss the sodomy statute in detail, they do demonstrate a principled intent to decriminalize the act between consenting adults, expressed from the earliest efforts to write a socialist criminal code in 1918 to the eventual adoption of legislation in 1922.6
By decriminalizing male homosexuality, the Bolsheviks stood in the long tradition of the labor movement. In 1898, for example, the leader of the German Social Democrats, August Bebel, had been the first politician to call for homosexual emancipation in a parliament. Three years earlier, socialists had defended the famous writer Oscar Wilde when he was put on trial for his homosexuality. Eduard Bernstein sharply criticized the idea that homosexuality deviated from “nature,” proposing instead that it be understood as a deviation from “the firmly maintained fictional norm,” and holding that “there is no reasonable ground why a similar contract between man and man should be criminally punished.”7 Socialists were not the only ones to call for the legalization of homosexuality. After the October Revolution, however, they not only raised the demand but actually put it into practice.
The pamphlet “The Sexual Revolution in Russia,” written in 1923 by the head of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, Dr. Grigorii Batkis, gives an impression of the official position of the Bolsheviks in the first years after the revolution. In it he writes,
[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute noninterference 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 offenses against public morality — Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called “natural” intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters.8
Of course, in the young Soviet Union, not all the prejudices were eliminated from one day to the next. They had become ingrained in decades and centuries of tsarist backwardness. Moreover, the legalization policy of the Bolsheviks did not extend to the entire area of the Soviet Union. The code of the Uzbek SSR, for example, which was established in 1926, still contained paragraphs against homosexuality. While in the European center of the country, homosexuality was understood as an innate characteristic of a minority; in the periphery it was conceived of as a widespread phenomenon arising from social conditions. Healey calls this a “contradiction between the Soviet Union’s declared sexual vanguardism and its policies in outlying regions.”9 Furthermore, during the 1920s, access to ballrooms and meeting halls in the urban centers dwindled more and more, which, according to a common interpretation, led to a retreat into the private sphere. This is contradicted, however, by the fact that homosexual men played important public roles in the young Soviet republic. Author Mikhail Kuzmin, who came from an aristocratic background and wrote the first coming-out novel affirming homosexuality, Wings, in 1906, sympathized with the revolution and served as chairman of the Petrograd Artists’ Association. Kuzmin was friends with the openly gay Georgy Chicherin, who served as People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, a post that was roughly equal to a Soviet foreign minister, from 1918 to 1930.
A few isolated statements by Lenin are often used to argue that the Bolsheviks allegedly took a prudish position on questions of sexuality. In correspondence with the French socialist Inessa Armand in 1915, he defended himself against the demand for a “freedom of love.”10 In a few lines, he argued that freedom from material calculations, religious prejudices, or “from the fetters of the law, the courts and the police” would be poorly expressed by this phrase and could also be understood to mean freedom “from the serious element in love” or “from childbirth,” which he described as a bourgeois demand. Healey, too, infers from these lines (and from similar statements attributed to Lenin after his death by Clara Zetkin11) that Lenin may well have meant to say that those suffering from a “personal abnormality” in their sexual lives should do so in private while devoting themselves to the revolution.12 Sherry Wolf strongly rejects this “rather stilted reading of Lenin’s thoughts” in Sexuality and Socialism, arguing that it conforms to the Cold War caricature of Lenin as a teetotaling ascetic.13 In fact, Lenin’s letters to Armand were not published until 1939 under Stalin to signal, as Healey himself writes in a footnote, that the “changes to family policy in the 1930s had Leninist origins.”14
The Stalinist Rollback
Contrary to the hopes of the Bolsheviks, by 1923, no further socialist states had emerged from the European revolutionary upsurge after World War I. In capitalist encirclement, material deprivation after years of first world and then civil war, and the resulting massive attenuation of the Soviet industrial proletariat, an extensive bureaucracy had taken hold in all areas of administration, attempting to elevate the country’s isolation to the status of theory with “socialism in one country.”
The bureaucracy’s interest in self-preservation, coexisting with the capitalist West, was matched by an increased demand for labor, which led to a policy of increasing the birth rate. Efforts to abolish the family, whose tasks for social reproduction were to be made superfluous through the establishment of public child care, laundry shop, or state canteens, were replaced by the consolidation of traditional family and gender norms. In a trade union newspaper, Aron Solz, who had held leading posts in the Soviet judiciary before being ousted in 1938, wrote: “A Soviet woman has equal rights with a man, but she is not relieved of the great and honorable natural duty: she’s a mother, she gives life.”15
The ideological justification for the renewed criminalization of homosexuality was provided in 1934 by Stalin’s mouthpiece on cultural issues, the author Maxim Gorky. He attributed to homosexuality a corrupting influence on youth and contrasted the myth of Russian “purity” with the decay of the “overcivilized” West, which, supposedly, along with homosexuality, also gave rise to fascism. His utterance culminates in the infamous statement: “Destroy the homosexuals — Fascism will disappear.”16
Just as the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1922 had been part of a broader effort to overcome any form of oppression based on gender or sexuality, the counterreforms of the 1930s were also not limited to reintroducing the persecution of homosexuality. Prostitution was also recriminalized, abortions banned, and the women’s section of the party’s Central Committee dissolved. Leon Trotsky described this policy of prohibitions as “the philosophy of a priest endowed also with the powers of a gendarme.”17 This turn toward a cult of motherhood was accompanied by the cruel persecution of any real or imagined political opposition. In her book Bread and Roses, Andrea D’Atri describes, in relation to women’s politics, the discontinuity between the first decrees of the nascent workers’ state and the outrageous later provisions of the bureaucracy. For the bureaucracy, it was clear: “The revolution needed to be opposed with a counterrevolution.”18 This rupture was enforced with the deportation, imprisonment, torture, and murder of countless people.
With the help of the Comintern, which had been stripped of its revolutionary content, the Stalinist bureaucracy, from the mid-1920s onward, carried its reactionary ideology into the Communist Parties in the rest of the world. In revolutionary Cuba, the Communist Party bureaucracy arrested and jailed gay men, forced HIV-positive people into state-run sanatoriums, and expelled thousands of queer people with the Mariel boat lift in 1980. Not until 1986 were all provisions criminalizing homosexuality removed from the legal code. Though homosexuality was not officially prohibited in China until after Mao’s death, men who sought out sexual relations with other men could be charged with “hooliganism,” particularly during the so-called Cultural Revolution initiated by Mao and his allies.
Communist parties around the world thereby exerted a strong conservative influence on the entire Left in the following decades. Thus, for a long time, queer hostility on the left was not limited to Stalinist organizations. The Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in the United States, for example, also “unofficially” excluded homosexuals and trans people from the organization in the years around the Stonewall Riot, i.e., amid the emergence of a radicalized LGBT liberation movement. The policy of exclusion from its youth organization was even declared publicly, even if it soon turned out to be unenforceable. Even when the organization changed its position in a 1975 pamphlet advocating for gay rights in the U.S., it argued that it was “cultural imperialism” to apply this demand to Cuba, where public displays of homosexuality were banned by the Castro regime. Before the Cuban Revolution in 1959, however, homosexuality had been legal there. The implication that Cubans were particularly conservative or even all heterosexual was even then nothing more than a racist stereotype.
The SWP was not the only organization in the tradition of Trotskyism to take such positions. In an interview, Ray Goodspeed, who supported the grand strike in the British mines in 1984 with Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, known from the film Pride, tells of the attitude of his organization at the time: “‘Militant,’ the group to which I belonged at the time, considered gay rights a bourgeois concern and imagined that the workers would not be able to handle it. However, when I came out, it was only the party hacks who had strange reactions, while the working-class people were quite easygoing.”
Even though the SWP claimed to carry forward the revolutionary legacy of Trotskyism, it held openly reactionary positions on this question. These were not, however, merely an isolated aberration but a consequence of the deviation from the political method of Marxism. This deviation consisted in an increased “objectivism,” that is, the relativization of the role of the political vanguard of the class and the consequent adaptation to the given. Instead of trying to lift the at the time backward consciousness in large parts of the U.S. working class with the help of transitional demands, the SWP adapted to this conservatism. At the same time, its uncritical attitude toward Cuba led it to confound the necessary defense of the achievements of the Cuban Revolution with the defense of the bureaucracy, which not only persecuted homosexuals but also suppressed any form of proletarian democracy.
The contradictions that persisted in Bolshevik policy toward homosexuality after 1917 cannot be understood without placing them in the context of the material shortages and international isolation of the young Soviet state. Today, however, these historically specific circumstances no longer exist, and the considerable development of the productive forces in the wake of the enormous devastation of World War II would put a new socialist attempt in an infinitely better position. Whereas in the young Soviet state, for example, attempts to socialize reproductive labor were bound to fail and the project of abolishing the heteronormative family remained stuck in its infancy, the economic conditions for such a project are incomparably superior today. There is no doubt that the possibilities for liberation from gender and sexual oppression exist.
The legalization of homosexuality in the Soviet Union was not only a milestone in the history of sexual liberation, but also a testament to the power of a Marxism that organizes itself independently of all institutions of the bourgeois state. As Lenin put it in 1902, such a movement is “trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected.”19 The reversals of conquests by LGTBTQ people that are now taking place in the United States demonstrate the impossibility of true democracy within the framework of capitalism. A revolutionary socialist struggle that seeks to transform society can win recognition and freedoms for queer people that far surpass what the capitalists’ so-called democracies around the world have acheived.
Post is both these two text. Separated because character length
>muh reactionary stalinist bureaucracy
What parts of the article is false information?
Stalin (and the party in general) ceded to the reactionaries in many ways to build a solid and stable foundation of the state he wanted to build. This was one of them. The soviet union could have been a safe haven for the hundreds of texts burned in all of europe about queerness. The lesson is that we cannot cede nothing to the reactionaries, just like the don't cede nothing to us.
post the letter faggot
What is "queer life" is just lifestylism idpol.
Not compreble to just a regular homosexual.
It's completely creation of 20th century liberalism
Are you retarded? Nobody said 'the USSR was gonna become 70% gay people under Leninism', just that it wasn't criminalised etc
>>4001>I dare you to read anything by Ilf and Petrov or Bulgakov or anyone else set in NEP-era USSR and find any mention of the extreme sexual liberation that was supposedly everywhere
Read Heart of a Dog. Specifically the part where professor Preobrazhensky treats his patients. He even has to deal with a government official who had sex with a minor and tries to get an advice from professor if abortion is safe for 14yo or something like that,lol
I am not saying that there was a sexual liberation paradise in 1920s Russia tho. But such ideas definitely existed in that still existing upper class intelectual milieu.
Or it's the fucking 30s and as the catchphrase goes "the USA was still lynching negroes" and homosexuality was often seen as a decadence of the rich and powerful who indulged in it mostly *not in equal terms*, among consenting adults, with their peers but perusing younger males for hire or under coercion or in exchange for favors. It was at best a courtier depravity thing when not outright pedophilia. Oh and religion also chastised queer behaviors because they upended the social order(marriage traditions and inheritances) and the reproduction of labor.
Why does the USSR and Cuba and shit keep having to live up to the ever changing cultural values of the present to not be denounced as backwards and retroactively "bad". This standard doesn't get leveraged against the US and Eurocucks who can apparently brush away literally everything before 2000s as "it was different times".
>Homosexuals don't contribute to population growth or healthy families
If they don't have an effect on population growth and aren't raising children anyway, banning homosexuality does nothing.
>All they do is spread disease. Repressing them is the right thing to do
First paragraph I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm not understanding the last part. I don't think it's past vs present. The world hasn't changed that much and everything that you said about homosexuality in the 1930's is still actual today.
Do you have any kids?
>The idea that sex is largely for pleasure is a very modern liberal idea
No it isn't.
>the rest of your post
See, this post is from someone who ceded. Why do you cede to them anon?
So like I said then, the party ceded to reactioanry elements. I don't even think it was the wrong move then. But in the present it would be a bad move.
An idea being modern means that it is bad?
honestly unless someone can point to a capitalist country where homosexuals weren't facing what was effectively a society-wide inquisition where it was normal to have people prying into your personal life to find out if you're gay so that they can murder, imprison, or exile you, why should I care?
No I don't. How about you?>>4009
The primary purpose of sex is recreation. Of course people fucked for pleasure too but not to the extent that they forget this primary purpose.
It is very bad when an idea is a product of bourgeois individualism and harms society as a whole yes
The good news is that Cuba proves there is no contradiction between Marxism Leninism and the embrace of sexual and gender minorities into society. This is in part because Fidel and other party leaders actually sat down and talked with gay Cubans who had nothing to do with the Batista regime. The family law currently on the table would make Cuba the best place for queers on earth as the bourgeois democracies are going in a more socially reactionary direction. It's a question if how powerful the reach of Catholics and Evangelical Protestant are.
Sexless kissless virgin turns his jealousy and spite towards the world at large.
>>4017>. The family law currently on the table would make Cuba the best place for queers on earth
And probably one of the best places for children's rights in te world.
How did this bourgeois individualism create gay people?
it's what happens when a woman gets pregnant by an ideal. Sad! Many such cases.
Cuba is influenced by western leftism. It is special due to the influence the american left had on it. This proves nothing.
Good old USA? Sweden? Denmark? Germany? Are you fucking retarded, do you feel like we're in the 1950s? Capitalism took over and it is more homo loving than ever. Fuck off.
Fidel had way more influence ideologically on the New Left than the other way around. He went undercover in the MAP camps and saw that gay people aren't western stooges or a bourgeois decadence. Vietnam is also relatively LGBT friendly, Cuba isn't alone on this.
What is this?
The English translation is something like Units to Assist Production, which was quickly abandoned and denounced.
as in, at the same time as when Stalin was around.
No. Fidel used the new left hippy fags to defend his own country and undermine USA from within. He was probably much more influebced by Che.
Seems like Op copy pasted an entire article.
Could have posted the linkhttps://www.leftvoice.org/marxism-stalinism-and-queerphobia/
Authors are Marco Helmbrecht and Niko Weber
couldn't find much about them though.
The Soviet Union was socially progressive for it's time and an extremely progressive force in human history.
It feels like these types of criticism aren't earnest. Meant to appeal to people with single issue political consciousness. Sometimes it feels like liberals trying to deny the success of actually existing socialism. The soviet system was an enormous improvement over the Tsarist system in all regards. Most Soviet citizens were peasants who had not experienced anything beyond living in a agricultural mode of production, that's a very limiting set of social conditions.
Socialists that won revolutions are the ones that prioritized class struggle above all else. The capitalist class is extremely powerful and very ruthless, they can't be defeated unless that is the priority. Imagine going back in time and talking to a soviet peasant, that wants an industrial tractor to make tilling the fields less backbreaking, and electricity to power an electric light bulb to be able to read in the evening. A person with those needs could not understand any of the concerns raised in this article. People have to gain access to a significant amount of material wealth that enables a comfortable lifestyle before their minds open up to anything beyond material needs. I know that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is flawed in some aspects but it's not wrong. i didn't read the entire article because nobody that is serious would use the words "Stalinist tradition" i'm not reading sectarian polemics anymore I'm over that
So you admit Stalin doesn't care about the fags?
Are all queers hippies to you? I don't know how Cuban guys were getting Jimi Hendrix albums under the embargo.
you really are just some seething incel aren't you lmao
You're an incel bitch
why should i care about the problems with stalin's human rights record when every comparable other country was easily doing as bad or worse, either de jure or de facto?
You can't blame what you don't like about "based third world AES" on the western left.
>>4015>No I don't. How about you?
>The primary purpose of sex is recreation.
Have you ever had sex?>>4030>So you admit Stalin doesn't care about the fags?
Probably, but I'm gay and I wouldn't write Joseph Stalin to ask for his permission to be gay. Besides, Stalin has been dead for 70 years.>>4022>Cuba is influenced by western leftism.
And vice-versa too. I suspect that socialism in, say, the United States will probably be more similar to Cuban socialism because of proximity.
>muh stalin hated the gays
homophobia was the norm. should Stalin have gone against the masses?
this is the SÈX with lenin thread all over again
What do you think a gay person is? It's a regular person that would have sex with people that have the same set of genitals as them in order to have a special label and a flag. It's not a natural category. It's literally a spook of the bourgeoise mind.
All true but we're trying not to scare off proles of a conservative psychological
disposition right now right now and after the revolution they'll be fine with it after a period of adjustment since homophobia as a psychological tendency comes from two sources a disgust response related to disease avoidance for the conservative neurotype (they also have a similar response to public displays if affection of the hetero type)
as an orthogonal factor lower intelligence since another psychological factor in homophobia is that the person with the issue is literally retarded as in the ambiguity of the non majority populations sexual and romantic behavior confuses
As you hinted at all these things can be mitigated with socialism in a way capitalism can not for example actually public health measures will lower STD pandemics and also for that matter other pandemics
other factors that will mitigate things is improved educational and academic support for the slower among us
In the meantime could comrades keep it on the down low especially in mass orientated agitation and propaganda I'm already worried about what scarecrow those of a retarded or conservative inclination are imagining by public health measures and educational measures are intended when the actual measures taken will probably be along the lines of more and better public amenities such toilet cubicles being spacious with urinals, thrones, and baby changing benches and hygiene product incinerators and personal tutoring for the retarded by their classmates etc to keep them mainstreamed at school while not having to drag the curriculum down for the rest of the class to the lowest common denominator
>>4039>It's a regular person that would have sex with people that have the same set of genitals as them in order to have a special label and a flag.
highest autism score homophobe>>4040>(they also have a similar response to public displays if affection of the hetero type)
Absolutely false lmao.
>>4039>It's not a natural category.
Sure, but that's like everything humans do. It's "false," or illusory, but lots of people believe in it, and you can't make them dis-believe in it by oppression, since that only reinforces the sense of identity with it.
>>4042>>It's not a natural category.>Sure, but that's like everything humans do
There's lots of animals that are gay sometimes.
>>4040>homophobia as a psychological tendency comes from two sources a disgust response related to disease avoidance for the conservative neurotype
… what? This sounds like pseudoscience drivel
Well I'm a fag myself, or have same-sex relations, or whatever you want to call what that is. I meant it more in the sense of an "identity" or waving flags around and that sort of thing. I think there's a unity of opposites here, so our friend can't fight "Pride" or a "gay identity" without also fighting the ideology which is trying to oppress us, otherwise he will fail in his efforts. And I don't mean the people trying to oppress people like me from engaging in Pride (to be honest I'm kind of "over it"), but what Pride represents as a signifier.
I'll tell people like him, if he wants to see more Pride flags, more Pride parades, and more of this stuff, then vote for the Republicans. Support your local Christian crusaders. Because they'll just intensify it.
Pride is like nationalism. Sure, communists are against nationalism, but it was for this reason that Lenin defended the right of nations to self-determination, because any attempt to deny it would merely reinforce the nationalist ideology.
>>4041>Absolutely false lmao.
It's not as strong but it's a real effect a person with a more liberal neurotype would be less likely to physically vomit or retch if they stumbled on a public display of affection such as public sex of any kind than the conservative type
It's deeply rooted in the physiological disgust response
If you can't get your head around the fact that people can be very different
For example some people can't visualise images in their minds eye or think in sentences in their head all very common and widespread
People are different right down to their dispositions and personalities and thinga like a sense of safety over the lifetime physically change how people's brains are literally wirex and if you can't get that you'll never make it comrade
>more than that, to have a reason for their lack of opposite sex interests in them … perhaps they really have only emotionally connected with someone of their own sex and have yet to experience that with the other sex.
Wouldn't the logical implication be that if same-sex displays of affection were normalized that this disgust response would go down? The human brain is telling them to avoid the unfamiliar thing as a disease-avoidance response. But if it's familiar, then that response would go down.
Being embodied beings made of actual physical materials as evolved animals means something for those who don't get it
We humans like sour tastes which is unusual for an animal other than other than primates and this is because vitamin C which primates lost the ability to produce is
It's not just Cuba. None of the currently existing ML states have any laws against gays.
Yes that's part of my point
Conservative types, you've all met them if you've ever touched grass aren't evil or other They're just types who've been wired with a strong aversion to disease and contagion in a more abstract sense and it's associated with the physioligical
Fix heath and sanitation issues in general and the problem largely solves itself because human brains are giant association making machines
*Physiological gag response
The notion that people's political leanings are reflective of some underlying psychological-physiological type seems somewhere between very dubious and outright eugenicist. It does largely seem to be bourgeois liberal academics who keep publishing findings that ackshually scientifically liberals are just smarter than conservatives.
There are people who have sex with both lol.
>>4053>leanings in an largely irrelevant due to being secondary contradictions of a culture war where any solutions are at best palliative
This is shit that cannot be fixed within capitalism
Ok you've done all the good boy liberal things of destigmatisation and monkeypox rolls along and reassociates men having sex with men with disease
Why does this happen, the answer is simple men statistically like casual sex a bit more more than women nothing more
But capitalism cannot stop and will not stop yet another pandemic and another one and another one it'll only profit from them
Look up Hebbian learning it's part of how brains and neural networks like in your gut or in a jellyfish work
Back to square one
You cannot fix an association with liberal language games you have to change the material conditions leading to themSo how are sewerage systems made anyway?
>there is nothing funny about people who are never able to experience the love of the opposite sex and are only able to bond with their own sex. I doubt you would laugh if you fully understood that as your own fate as it is for many people.
I'm gay and had a girlfriend at one point so I've experienced both sides lol
>I can't empathize with people who are different from me
oh no people in the 20th century where homophobic because gays where treated as a disease(except one in the list, that changed his views), oh no homobros what we are gonna do.
Fascists did this image
>But being proud of a sexuality seems kinda retarded. Usually people are proud of actual accomplishments
Are we living on the same planet? A lot of dudes boast about the women they fuck, full of machismo or whatever, and people are generally proud of shit they had nothing to do with, like the geographical place they were born in.
I mean, far right assholes did this image to make communism look bad and divide the workers. You can tell because at least half of it is a lie.
Wow the USA support the blacks!? Therefore we must adopt the line that blacks are bad. Thank god Trotsky invented racism,
>>4064>unlabeled bar graph
come on man
>>4063>communism is when I tell people who they should fuck
I swear to christ this board gets dumber every day
just because cockshott is weird about this shit doesn't mean you have to be
why are gay men hoarding all the money
>But being proud of a sexuality seems kinda retarded. Usually people are proud of actual accomplishments
Overcoming oppression is an accomplishment, which was (partially) achieved through years of struggle by the gay rights movement. The pride is to counter the centuries of shame put on sexuality. Just because some people get indulgent with it (at a PARADE, where that's the general idea) doesn't mean that the point is indulgence.
it says cis gay men are richer than everyone else
who are you quoting and why are you getting mad lmao
Because it's annoying to watch people on this board act like they're better than /pol/ while trotting out the same kind of broken logic to defend forms of bigotry that are slightly less taboo
i just stated that gay men are richer, which is a fact
Yes, and what conclusions about them are you using that to justify?
Gay men are richer mainly because men make more money on average, and 2 men making money together will make more than 2 women or 1 man 1 woman. This is pretty basic.
>>4051> They're just types who've been wired with a strong aversion to disease and contagion in a more abstract sense
Which is why they all went down the anti-vax route?
Reminder that the US government deliberately suppressed info or deliberately spread misinfo aboit AIDS until all the radicals died and then suddenly embraced Pride wholeheartedly in the depths of protests to the Great Recession. And now it's completely inseparable.
there is no source for any of these quotes
>>4079>And now it's completely inseparable.
Putting bits of a virus inside you and It's a new experimental vaccine ick that simpleConservative
here we're talking of a temperament or more specifically a tendency towards a strong disgust response as in gagging or throwing up that tends to line up with certain views on the culture wars
If you wanted to be cute you could classify sea anenomies or sea sponges as more or less conservative by the criteria although obviously these don't fight culture wars as far as we know
Yes, bourgeois feminists are extremely cringe. They don't actually advance women's interests, they advance their own careers and bourgeois bullshit, all of it in order to prevent workers from gaining rights
USSR quite easily brought into being equal rights for women. East Germany had full on employment for women, while West Germany even today lags behind on equality. Bourgeois "emancipation" just doesn't work, they create some movies and police thoughts, but they don't actually solve economic issues which produce this inequality to begin with
>>4041>highest autism score homophobe
I know you mean that ironically but I accept your compliment anyway. Good day.
Yeah this kind of thing unironically leads to Al Qaeda ideology or some other kind of fundamentalist reaction while the paradox is that Al Qaeda was receiving weapons from the U.S. government to the fight the Syrian war. Or like the Azov Battalion receiving weapons. And I wonder whether the two things are related, like the U.S. government SAYS it supports LGBT people and so forth, but what it really wants to do is stoke and encourage far-right groups that are useful in its various proxy wars.
Reactionary and pseudoscientific drivel. Read a book, retard.
>>4040>In the meantime could comrades keep it on the down low
Like why the hell should we? Heterosexual people aren't being criticized by "communists" for not keeping their relationships on the down low. If this is "communism" then I don't want anything to do with it. Fortunately the communist party I belong to doesn't believe in such backward thinking.
this is literally just opportunism. We have fucking principles! Yes, if this scares away conservatives, fine. No one is saying to bring up gay people when you're unionizing (unless u work with gay people), but as communists yes we absolutely must not cater to conservatives. There is no point in debasing ourselves, and showing everyone a complete lack of backbone, to bend over backwards to appease the most backwards and reactionary elements. It destroys exactly what we have to offer, which is clarity of purpose and a wide embrace of the working class. If we try to be so open as to split with certain groups we would otherwise also embrace
in order to embrace conservatives, we're directly putting them in charge of the communist movement. That's ridiculous. The right needs to be combated, and so does the center. It's impossible to find reconciliation when the demand is for us to abandon our principles and for intolerance at those who otherwise are allies.
>>4092>Yes, if this scares away conservatives, fine.
Great except we're talking at least 20 percent of the population
Communists should probably avoid waving gommie shit at pride marches unless communism matters more to them than queer issues since communism has stigma also
I mean I personally love the idea of an enourmous portrait of Stalin on a float at pride with dancing gimps but I'm sure you can agree it is not appropriate
Communism has never been appealing to consrvatives. Go out and do praxis. You're literally inventing shit because you have no clue about anything outside twitch streamers and twitter schizos.
I have workmates some of who are conservative get a job kid
Quite the contrary, idiot. Stop pandering to reactionaries. Bringing socialism back into the LGBT struggle means returning to its original form, before the ruling class recuperated it. Yes, a giant float with the face of stalin would in fact be great.
Returning [the] lgbt I think you meant
Yeah ok fair point
I'm really not going around waving a Pride flag around or talking about it very often but the "keep it on the down low" is going to get a hostile reaction from most lgbt people. They don't want to live in fear of other people. You will get a Fuck You and that'll be the end of the conversation
Your coworkers (assuming they are homophobes) have been unironically brainwashed to hate gays. Their obstacle to favor communism isn't that socialism is LGBT friendly or whatever, their obstacle is brainwashing. No amount of pandering to them or watering down socialism to fit reactionary's sensibilities will do anything.
I encourage you to do praxis, but in its abscense, I suggest you ask comrades who do praxis in conservative states. You'd be surprised at their experience. Eddie Smith has videos where he talks precisely about this failed watering down cop-out in the context of the midwest, pointing out how it's unnecessary and actively harmful.
>The pamphlet “The Sexual Revolution in Russia,” written in 1923 by the head of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, Dr. Grigorii Batkis, gives an impression of the official position of the Bolsheviks in the first years after the revolution. In it he writes,
>[Soviet legislation] declares the absolute noninterference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one’s interests are encroached upon.
Also there's this weird attitude among some people here that lgbt are like all communists or something. They're not. They have different views. Some are right-wing conservatives. Drop this sense of ownership over them where you can command them what to do for the revolution because you like Joseph Stalin. Start appealing to and organizing people based on their interests.
The covert bourgeoisie within the dictatorship of the proletariat; the bureaucracy, needs to be overcome, at all costs, to safeguard the revolutionary gains by the proletariat in its movement towards communism.
Which ones depends on their temperament and intelligence not in the crude qualitative tism score sense but more as a quality
Unless you want to go full Pravda Which for the record I entirely support you doing but am probably in a minority on the issue
the association between men who have sex with men with disease will continue being reinforced under capitalism due to capitalism inability to tackle matters of health
Issues aren't disconnected from the world even to go full Pravda which is to say truth would require socialism
Humanitarian efforts can be made but the primary contradiction causing the issue remains capital
>>4104>the association between men who have sex with men with disease will continue being reinforced under capitalism due to capitalism inability to tackle matters of health
Homophobia doesn't come from the idea that gay men have disease. And in fact, homophobia is what led to uncontrolled HIV spread.
That's the same for all health issues
I'm not joking
Compare the burger vs Chinese response to Covid
Your particular issues are not disconnected from other proles issues is what I'm getting at these issues can be approached and contextualized to relate them to others issues in a way that makes them their ownWhat I'm trying to get at is that your issues also matter to them they just don't know it yet
Skipped a step in my response the homophobia horrifically was only a small component of the shambolic response
Most of the shambolic response was innate to a for profit health industry and a for profit entertainment industry etc etc
First off, I ain't reading all that>>4010
Weakness of the mind. I think they are rationally pursuing irrational ends cause ceding a point can you ingratiate yourself to someone, this seems correct in theory, tho I don't know much about the topic of being a faggot debatelord.>>3998
Has anyone considered this angle? Like not to compare myself to Stalin but I ignore things that are too stupid.
"this is the most retarded shit I ever archived"
"ah, but you did archive it"
-Gay Jack Sparrow
>>4105>homophobia is what led to uncontrolled HIV spread.
Good point, ideological obscurantism led this disease to become pandemic. The USSR really fucked it up going trough denial, and China called it the "loving capitalism disease", doing fuck all because homosexuality only exists in capitalist countries since it's a bourgeois deviance right?
keep your American bs in America.
Homosexuals can be comrades although they tend to live more hedonistic lifestyles.
Queer is a word that doesnt exist in my language, neither is gender. And Ill keep it that way.
>>4110>wort existiert nicht,d.H Konzept existiert auch nicht
stupid cunt, read origin of the family; everything Engels does there in outlining a not at all natural, but societally determined basis for the family structure and gender roles within it can easily be applied to gender itself. In fact, it MUST be applied to gender itself; if we agree with Engles when he writes that male usurpation of societal dominance from women was perhaps the first class conflict in history, then it only logically follows that a strict delineation between the categories of "man" and "woman" would also result from that same conflict (can't achieve dominance over an ill defined social group, can't maintain dominance of an ill defined social group).
therefore we have no reason to privilege these categories, borne of male domination of women as outlined in origins of the family, as "natural," or "morally correct," etc
fucking "conservative Marxists" haven't even read our own books
you dont weaken class solidarity by permitting homosexuality - you weaken it by prohibiting homosexuality. Permitting homosexuality means that the category of class supercedes matters of sexual orientation; banning it implies that even gay proletariat are somehow inherently different, have a different set of interests, than the straight proletariat.
ALSO, if Engels was willing to analyze family itself, monogamy itself, as societally defined constructs, flying in the face of orthodox beliefs of his (and still, honestly, our) time, we can, and ought, to apply his same methodology to other social issues - gender and sexuality being prime targets.
But he didn't expell the guy and he archived the manuscript with the note so he obviously thought the guys argument on the homosexuals as a nation of its own was worth something even if he disagreed
It very well could be that the guy was an idiot and
that Stalin was homophobic. You can't expect people to be perfect beacons of Truth. I'm gay and I had to unlearn homophobia, then I had to unlearn liberal conceptions of sexuality, and I'm still discovering more and more. And I've only given it so much thought because I'm gay. Straight people, and especially "cis hetero white" etc, basically normative people, aren't really aware of the ways oppression plays out, which many times can be extremely subtle.
Yeah but I can have a laff about Comrade Stalin archiving the manuscript with>Stupid faggot
I realised that and was just waiting for an excuse to use the joke
Plz can I have laff?
>>4118>Plz can I have laff?
no, fuck you
I made the same point and you ignored it.
>>3998>Doesn't understand what idpol means>Thinks Stalin committing an idpol is a good thing because it's Stalin doing it.>Uncritically accepts the assertion that gays 'weaken and promote division beyond class' simply because Stalin said it.
3 strikes, bait beyond reasonable doubt.
That’s not exactly “ceding” to reactionary elements bruh, that’s just having reactionary beliefs
Face it, he hated gay people, he was a man from the first half of the 20th Century, it is what it isKill your gods
>>4092> We have fucking principles!
Lmao wrong board to be saying this
good post. reactionaries won't respond or acknowledge.
This is an idpol bait thread and should have been taken down.
>>4093>Great except we're talking at least 20 percent of the population
Yeah and people who accept gay rights are more of the population, you can't please everyone
Most responses are well grounded anti-idpol. It is important to teach our fellow comrades proper anti-idpol, and stamp out reactionary "anti"-idpol which is also idpol.
I'm going to weigh in on this as le closeted trans woman (potential AGP, not sure)
Basically, I want to see a world where nobody gives half a flying fuck if I'm trans besides maybe other trans people. It's the most basic response that you can give, sure, but it's one that's the most well-applying for me. I don't want there to be any stigma or preconceived idea of me for being trans. It already pains me enough that I'm not cis and have to deal with dysphoria, so I'd rather not have being outed also find its way on the list of things I need to worry about.
This anti-anti-idpol is just lefty idpol all over again.
LGBT+ ideology whether for or against is just market segmentation of various consumer lifestyles. Culture war resultant is just emergent phenomenon of competing brands combined to media profiting off the attention grabbing that conflict generates.>>4127
BASED & DONTCAREATALLPILLED
Unique IPs: 46