NationStates

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
are those people considered big time communist/socialist thinkers?

I don't know why any modern communist would care what some guy thought about homosexuality if that opinion was expressed more than 20 years ago. the farther back you go the more it was the thinking of "everyone" at the time, communist or not. it amounts to nothing more than ideological justification of a non-political rejection of something they didn't really understand but thought was yucky.

if there are current communist thinkers who still think that being gay or accepting gay rights is somehow counterrevolutionary and advocate that all communist/socialists should be anti-gay rights, then we can talk. otherwise its a relic of the past just like any other anti-gay politician.

^This. Lots of people make a bigger deal of the USSR being negative toward homosexuality than many countries are now. At the time, just about the entire world considered it a mental illness.

yeah

and it would be bizarre if you (specific and generic you) felt you had to be against gay rights because "that's what stalin believed". communism isn't a religion where you have to follow the words of the founder to the letter. (I know that stalin isn't the founder of communism.) its an economic theory that needs to be updated to reflect modern life.

pro-homo.

Felvenia is more of a liberal democracy, but it has some socialist features.
In Felvenia everyone has the right to do what he likes as long as it doesn't break the law, so same-sex marriage is totally legal in Felvenia.

Felvenia wrote:Felvenia is more of a liberal democracy, but it has some socialist features.
In Felvenia everyone has the right to do what he likes as long as it doesn't break the law, so same-sex marriage is totally legal in Felvenia.

welcome to nsg.

in this forum we post out of character, giving our own real life opinion on mostly real life things.

I have a homosexual friend and I'm completely fine with it. I was before I knew he was homosexual and I'll always be fine with it.

And I have a question of my own - why do you, Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskists, Communists and Social-Democrats of all stripes (and shades of Red ) support gay marriage IF, as postulated by Marx and Engels monogamous marriage is a throwback tool of private property arrangement and inheritance laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the ideal communistic society there won't be any private property and, that's why any economic need for maintainig monogamous marriage - as opposed to the groupe one.

P.S. In 1934 American communist Harry White wrote and open letter to Stalin, where he went to a great length comparing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for emancipation of women and fight for equality from the opressed races. Iosif Vissaryonovich (who even in that time was famous for writing inflammatory comments) wrote on the side of thecopy of that article his opinion: "Send to archive. Idiot and degenerate"

Lyttenburg wrote:And I have a question of my own - why do you, Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskists, Communists and Social-Democrats of all stripes (and shades of Red ) support gay marriage IF, as postulated иy Marx and Engels monogamous marriage is a throwback tool of private property arrangement and inheritance laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the ideal communistic society there won't be any private property and, that's why any economic ned for maintainig monogamous marriage - as opposed to the groupe one.

P.S. In 1934 American communist Harry White wrote and open letter to Stalin, where he went to a great length comparing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for emancipation of women and fight for equality from the opressed races. Iosif Vissaryonovich (who even in that time was famous for writing inflammatory comments) wrote on the side of thecopy of that article his opinion: "Send to archive. Idiot and degenerate"

1) Stalin lived in a time when the contemporary science was that homosexuality was a mental illness.
2) Just because there's no need for marriage doesn't mean that people can't get one.
3) I only support it based on the idea that there's no reason to be against it.

Anarcho-communist, and I would answer that I'm strongly in favor of love.

Greater Beggnig wrote:Some Communists such as Guy Hocquenghem have argued that homosexuality is "one of the effects of capitalist sociality"

I'm not saying he's dumb, but damn, he really dropped the ball there.

and in the old Soviet Block countries there was a very negative view of homosexuality, (in the Soviet Union it was commonly equated with pedophilia).

Probably in that it didn't net more workers for the motherland.

Others such as the CPUSA have argued that the liberation of gays is a key issue that Marxists must grapple with. As NS tends to be more in favour of gay rights than against it, I was curious as to how the Marxists, Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists, Leninists, Trotskyists, etc., here would weigh up homosexuality according to their ideology. As what some of you would call a 'Zubatovist' I am intrigued with Socialism and Communism.

I'm personally completely in favour of gay rights, as I know many homosexuals and I see no reason why their relationships should be treated as lesser than those of heterosexual couples. So Socialists and Communists, what is your opinion of homosexuality and gay rights?

I think that neither sexuality nor gender are relevant in any way to socialism, or for that matter, communism. If you try to shoehorn social concepts in your economic and/or political leanings, you only get a huge mess.

Lyttenburg wrote:And I have a question of my own - why do you, Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskists, Communists and Social-Democrats of all stripes (and shades of Red ) support gay marriage IF, as postulated иy Marx and Engels monogamous marriage is a throwback tool of private property arrangement and inheritance laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the ideal communistic society there won't be any private property and, that's why any economic ned for maintainig monogamous marriage - as opposed to the groupe one.

P.S. In 1934 American communist Harry White wrote and open letter to Stalin, where he went to a great length comparing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for emancipation of women and fight for equality from the opressed races. Iosif Vissaryonovich (who even in that time was famous for writing inflammatory comments) wrote on the side of thecopy of that article his opinion: "Send to archive. Idiot and degenerate"

The reasons why people get married nowadays is based on love/emotions, not property.

More of a Social Democrat, but anyway. They should not be restricted in who they can marry and love. They should also be treated equally before the law.

Lyttenburg wrote:And I have a question of my own - why do you, Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskists, Communists and Social-Democrats of all stripes (and shades of Red ) support gay marriage IF, as postulated иy Marx and Engels monogamous marriage is a throwback tool of private property arrangement and inheritance laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the ideal communistic society there won't be any private property and, that's why any economic ned for maintainig monogamous marriage - as opposed to the groupe one.

P.S. In 1934 American communist Harry White wrote and open letter to Stalin, where he went to a great length comparing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for emancipation of women and fight for equality from the opressed races. Iosif Vissaryonovich (who even in that time was famous for writing inflammatory comments) wrote on the side of thecopy of that article his opinion: "Send to archive. Idiot and degenerate"

Marriage can be a lot of things to a lot of different people. It's true in a commune everyone enjoys the sharing of property that modern marriage is basically based upon, but Marriage can be as simple as a display of commitment to each other. Just because the need for something no longer exists doesn't mean it can't still remain in symbolism.

Othelos wrote:The reasons why people get married nowadays is based on love/emotions, not property.

Yeah-yeah, these sentiments are only good for romantics and teenagers. The reality is always the same.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are substantial differences between the "domestic partnership" or "civil marriage" (or whatever it's called) and proper state recognized "marriage" in things pertaining to inheritance, rights of property and other stuff. Art LGTB activists fighting for the equal "marriage" rights with everything entailed in that or for "domestic partnership" (or whatever)?

Lyttenburg wrote:

Othelos wrote:The reasons why people get married nowadays is based on love/emotions, not property.

Yeah-yeah, these sentiments are only good for romantics and teenagers. The reality is always the same.

Again, caorrect me if I'm wrong, but there are substantial differences between the "domestic partnership" or "civil marriage" (or whatever it' called) and proper state recognized "marriage" in things pertaining to inheritance, rights of property and other stuff. Art LGTB activists fighting for the equal "marriage" rights with everything entailed in that or for "domestic partnership" (or whatever)?

yes.

But for someone to hold a position opposed to same-sex marriage, they would need to be anti-civil marriage in general, or it's an unfair and discriminatory position.

I support Transgender right's, but I do not support homosexual rights. I'm not religious, but I feel that it is wrong. Call me reactionary and not true, but you can say that for many things.

Depends on how close you follow Marx or how much you willing to trust your opinion in stuff

I believe supporting LGBT rights is a crucial part of socialism and communism. It's all about liberating the oppressed so logically that would apply to homosexuals, women, people of colour, etc.

Political movements are a product of the societies from which they stem, for better or for worse.

I'll give you all the libertarian view:


Gay couples shall have the right to defend their marijuana plantations with .50 caliber machine guns and a mercenary army.

Sexual egalitarianism is a part of general egalitarianism, not some separate thing. No society that is not egalitarian can be truly free or truly equal. It causes no harm to anyone, so there is no reason except bigotry and repression to oppose it. The Left's opposition of it was an issue of ignoring social equality in favor of only caring about economic equality, which is a flawed concept that ignores a large part of the problem with capitalism and hierarchy in general: Bigotry.

Communism and socialism have always been at the forefront of the struggle for homosexual rights. As a matter of fact August Bebel, the first major politician to publicity demand the legalization of homosexual behavior was a socialist. Likewise all of the first homosexual rights organizations were socialist in character and the first countries to legalize homosexuality were those with socialist and social democratic influences in their governments. Lenin made Russia the first major power to legalize homosexuality after the October revolution- Stalin banned it again- and defending this conquest was one of the things that helped define Trotskyism. Tony Cliff, for instance, went so far as to say that the president of the British socialist republic would be a lesbian.

In other words, you might as well ask what communists and socialists think about banning child labor- we were at the forefront that movement as well. I would go so far as to say that someone opposed to LGBT rights could not be described as a Marxist in any meaningful sense of the word.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Lyttenburg wrote:And I have a question of my own - why do you, Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskists, Communists and Social-Democrats of all stripes (and shades of Red ) support gay marriage IF, as postulated иy Marx and Engels monogamous marriage is a throwback tool of private property arrangement and inheritance laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the ideal communistic society there won't be any private property and, that's why any economic ned for maintainig monogamous marriage - as opposed to the groupe one.

P.S. In 1934 American communist Harry White wrote and open letter to Stalin, where he went to a great length comparing the struggle for gay rights with the struggle for emancipation of women and fight for equality from the opressed races. Iosif Vissaryonovich (who even in that time was famous for writing inflammatory comments) wrote on the side of thecopy of that article his opinion: "Send to archive. Idiot and degenerate"

1) Stalin lived in a time when the contemporary science was that homosexuality was a mental illness.
2) Just because there's no need for marriage doesn't mean that people can't get one.
3) I only support it based on the idea that there's no reason to be against it.

1) Stop trying to excuse Stalin's reactionary social views. Socialism already had a long tradition of struggle for homosexual rights before he rose to prominence. You might as well argue that he had no obligation to try an implement the 8 hour day.
2) Marriage is useful as an administrative mechanism even if you remove property ties from it.
3) So not because the basic principles of equality, democracy, and Marxism demand LGBT rights?

4years wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:1) Stalin lived in a time when the contemporary science was that homosexuality was a mental illness.
2) Just because there's no need for marriage doesn't mean that people can't get one.
3) I only support it based on the idea that there's no reason to be against it.

1) Stop trying to excuse Stalin's reactionary social views. Socialism already had a long tradition of struggle for homosexual rights before he rose to prominence. You might as well argue that he had no obligation to try an implement the 8 hour day.
2) Marriage is useful as an administrative mechanism even if you remove property ties from it.
3) So not because the basic principles of equality, democracy, and Marxism demand LGBT rights?

1) Fair enough.
2) Ditto.
3) Marxism is based on economics, so what people do in their bedroom has no relevance to it (except of course, reproduction, which is pretty economic in the long-term), so Marxism doesn't really demand much on it; however, I think you may be misinterpreting it (which is partially my fault because I used terrible language to describe my feelings), what I intended to say was that because there is no legitimate reason be to against LGBT rights, you have to be for them.

Yea, there's really no denying that Stalin had reactionary social views. One could argue it was simply a product of his time, but even that argument has little basis in reality since the KPD supported LGBT rights as early as the 1920's. With that in mind, I think it's safe to assume that some of Stalin's views were influenced by his own upbringing.

Love 'em.