I don't attend pride (and usually protest it) because the police take part. But is it fundementally a bourgeois event? I mean, it was not founded by the bourgeois, just co-opted by them. It is just like any other folk festival.
But in the end it is impossible to defend it and say it is not bourgeois. It is clear whenever you attend that it does not represent all queer people. It represents the petit-bourgeois, financially secure gays and lesbians, and old trans people. The very essense of pride has become firmly bourgeois. I probably would not go even without my political objections to it, because I can't really relate to that kind of display.
Of course, this was not by accident. I highly recommend K. Murali's book 'Of Concepts and Methods', in which some of the essays / chapters go into detail on identity politics. The fact is, every single non-class based movement will eventually be co-opted into capitalism. This is because capitalism is the perfect class system. All it needs is capitalist and proletarian, it does not need any of the small classes and sects previous systems did. They didn't need to persecute gays, so they stopped doing so.
This is precisely why the communists should organize with these social minority groups. If we do not organize them, the bourgeois will integrate them. We need to get to them first and prove we can be the ones who solve their issues, not the class enemy. The Communist party needs to be the one leading the opressed social groups against the capitalists. If an active part is not taken to mobilize them, we are squandering resources. This will take the form of a democratic front. Identity politics? Well, certainly the democratic front will be organized around identity politics, and that's the whole point. This is the way of organizing marginalized groups whilst keeping the party, and class struggle, central.
Therefore, we need to set up an anti-pride, a communist party front group pride.
>>9>is it fundementally a bourgeois eventYes. Bourgeoise doesn't mean "bad thing". There's a reason there's no pride at rural villages. It's a city, modern, cosmopolitan thing.
The rest of your post is kind of OK but mostly anarchist shit. We need better analysis here.
>>784I disagree with the implication that urban = bourgeois, as if the contemporary rural village isn't defined by capitalist relations of production as much if not more so than the city.
If you want to define the bourgeoisie as urban and cosmopolitan, then the proletariat must be doubly so as it too was born in the city.
The reason there's not pride in rural villages is simply a question of scale and population size, trying to assign it some metaphysical class significance is hardly materialist.
>>9 Pride, revolutionary, identity politics, lib bourgeois.
Whatever benefit identity politics as a blanket term may have had in the past it has been ruined by the last decade of lib cringe in mainstream media.