Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Communism and homosexuality

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 23:10
Quote:
Why is it a bourgeois issue? You don't think there are homosexual comrades that want to get married and have equal rights under the law?
Of course they do. But homosexual bourgeois also want the right to get married. So the question is rather: What is bourgeois in sexuality and family, and what is communist? If you say that gay people should have the right to get married, then obviously you believe that "free love" should be the basis of family. But does "free love" corresponds to the communist definition of family? I don't think Lenin was a great apologist of "free love".
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Nov 2012, 23:16
I don't care about "free love". I don't get morals mixed with politics.
I care for equality. So two willing citizens want to get married - that is, to sign a contract merging their patrimony and establishing a society-, then I don't care if they're two men, two woman or man and woman. Their sex is irrelevant to the legal consequences.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 23:53
Quote:
I don't get morals mixed with politics. I care for equality.

Why should there be equality between two different situations then? There can be no equality between the bourgeois and the worker. But if you believe that there can be equality between the straight and the gay, then are you not supporting "free love"?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Nov 2012, 00:04
What do you mean by "free love"?
If you mean that someone can have as many partners as he'd like - that has nothing to do with marriage.
If you mean that one person can love someone of the same sex - that's homosexuality, which has nothing to do with marriage.

The question is: why wouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? Is there a reason why they couldn't?


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Nov 2012, 00:07
What benefit to class struggle can be obtained from opposing people to marry who they please?

Social conservatism is reactionary in almost every instance.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Nov 2012, 00:18
praxicoide wrote:
I personally would have sided with supporters, like Kollontai, who argued in favor of taking up these causes and uniting them with the general cause, instead of letting them be taken up by bourgeois actors.


In principle, I can agree with this. However, it does bug me when communists exert an inordinate amount of time and effort concerning themselves with identity politics issues. Anyone who's spent a lot of time among industrial and other manual working class people will know that convincing them to agree with the radical left on social issues will be more difficult than on economic ones.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Nov 2012, 00:31
Quote:
What do you mean by "free love"?
If you mean that someone can have as many partners as he'd like - that has nothing to do with marriage.

But it does. You are not supposed to betray your partner.

Quote:
If you mean that one person can love someone of the same sex - that's homosexuality, which has nothing to do with marriage.

It does, when gay people want to be married.

Quote:
The question is: why wouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? Is there a reason why they couldn't?

Why would they want to get married?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 15 Nov 2012, 04:00
OP-Bagration wrote:
But it does. You are not supposed to betray your partner.
It does, when gay people want to be married.

So you think all gay people are for "free love"? They're regular people, who fall in love. Some are loyal, some are not, just like heterosexuals.

Quote:
Why would they want to get married?

For the same reasons heterosexuals want to get married. To publically recognize their love, for legal advantages (access to free healthcare, inheritance, pensions), etc.
So what's the reason they shouldn't or can't get married???


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Nov 2012, 04:08
Krasniy_Volk wrote:
I would like to think that the old times' concept of marriage (of ownership) doesn't really apply anymore, and that today it signifies a mutually agreed contract.

I'd like to think that Star Wars is real. What matters is the material basis or marriage. Although I will agree that ownership has become mutual.

runequester wrote:
Wouldn't that only apply if it was one person having multiple partners. If every person was free to so choose, it wouldn't be ownership as we understand it today

Only the former example constitutes polygamy. Polygamy is explicitly about owning several people.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Nov 2012, 09:00
I had typed up a long reply, but apparently this was lost...

OK, let me try again. I know that the conversation has moved on, but I would still like to address what Bagration said.

OP-Bagration wrote:
The problem is that you have to define a form of family. The capitalist society believe that family should be base on "free love" and "free sex". Therefore, why not accepting situations like incest, polygamy, "trouple", or even bestiality, as long as the participants are willing to participate?


If by "free love" you mean the potential to choose your mate, then yes, that's how capitalist society works...in theory.

The problem with the examples provided is that there are health issues and potential for abuse which I believe justify to a degree the restrictions against these practices. No doubt, moral remnants are also at work.

Quote:
Also if it is a "bourgeois" issue, we can't support it.


What? Why not? We support borgeois issues all the time, like equality or development, to name two examples. The difference is that we don't see them as ends in themselves, like in the capitalist worldview, because they're not abstract principles to us, but ideological formations. We'll never abstracty call for equality no matter what, or development no matter what, like liberals do.

Just to clarify, when saying that this is a bourgeois issue, I don't mean to say that it doesn't affect workers (it does), I mean to say that it has to do with the bourgeois project of breaking man away from the yoke of tradition and imposing only market relations ("all that is solid..."). That man is perceived as a bearer of rights is something that derives from the need to establish a neutral ground, crucial for the carrying out of transactions. This means formal equality, abstract liberty, and it means destroying castes and other traditional restrictions and prejudices to turn everyone into simply a wage-earner.

The thing is that, according to Lenin, since capitalism establishes actual inequality, real servitude, the ideals of formal equality and abstract liberty can never be fufilled under capitalism. I remember reading how he boasted that the bourgeois tasks of bringing equality were accomplished only by the Soviet rule.

Thus, the struggle of homosexuals for equality, and their "right" to marry each other, is very much a bourgeois issue, just like before the woman's struggle to elect officials and be exploited in the workforce just like a man was/is a bourgeois issue. Again, this doesn't mean we shouldn't suppport it, quite the contrary; we shouldn't tolerate discrimination based on ancient morals and traditions. Only, we should be aware that this is a limited question which is secondary to that of wage-slavery, which oppresses everyone and which is the biggest enemy.

Quote:
Yet equality for women wasn't a bourgeois issue. Lenin said about it: "Scratch a communist and find a philistine".


I don't understand what he means by that. That communists involved in women's causes were phillistines? That's rather nasty, and slanders many great Marxist, starting with Engels.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 15 Nov 2012, 09:36
In case you failed to understand my figure of speech: Just as society has evolved from those times, so has the concept of marriage. I don't agree with your assertion, Dagoth.
Back in white
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 15 Nov 2012, 17:39
Well you're just wrong. It's still a property arrangement no matter how much idealism you heap on top.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2012, 20:13
If an individual's consciousness leads them to homosexuality, there is no reason to oppose them, as views are necessarily subjective as garnish through experiences(although under the auspices of society).

The Soviet Union did ban it, but that was for logistical reasons. In '30s Russia, Homosexuals had a tendency to be pedophiles, and thus they couldn't continue to allow its existence so long as that was true. Like it or not, Homosexuality means something different relative to different countries.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 16 Nov 2012, 20:23
So, you mean than in 1930's russian society homosexuals were thought to have a tendency to be pedophiles?
Because that wasn't true back then as it isn't now.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 17 Nov 2012, 02:14
In the USSR they were mostly called pederasts, which isn't like pedophiles, but you still have a sexual relationship with younger men or teenagers. Yet the slogan for the 1930's sodomy law was : destroy pederasty and you destroy fascism. Gay people were seen as degenerated. Indeed in the USSR it has always been considered as an illness and not as another form of sexuality equal to heterosexuality.
It's possible that the sodomy law was very useful to strike opponents.

Quote:
If by "free love" you mean the potential to choose your mate, then yes, that's how capitalist society works...in theory.

But what about a socialist society? It's not sufficient to say everyone is equal, because homosexuality is a social practice. Been black, or been a woman, isn't a social practice. But homosexuality has a relation with the organization of society. Therefore we can say that sexuality doesn't matter and that everyone should be equal, even the polygamist or polyandrous, as long as the basis of human relation is "love". But we can also say that to a socialist society corresponds a form of sexuality, and therefore refuse to recognize other forms of sexualities such as homosexuality. Or recognize both heterosexuality and homosexuality as long as there is a "coupe", but repress other forms of sexuality. Otherwise, we could tolerate, but refuse to recognize. The last question is whether heterosexual sexuality is normal and the other ones are degenerated.

Quote:
The problem with the examples provided is that there are health issues and potential for abuse which I believe justify to a degree the restrictions against these practices. No doubt, moral remnants are also at work.

There is also health issues with sodomy or libertinism.

Quote:
Just to clarify, when saying that this is a bourgeois issue, I don't mean to say that it doesn't affect workers (it does), I mean to say that it has to do with the bourgeois project of breaking man away from the yoke of tradition and imposing only market relations ("all that is solid..."). That man is perceived as a bearer of rights is something that derives from the need to establish a neutral ground, crucial for the carrying out of transactions. This means formal equality, abstract liberty, and it means destroying castes and other traditional restrictions and prejudices to turn everyone into simply a wage-earner.

Sometimes we support bourgeois projects, especially against the old society. But once the old society is down, we must oppose the bourgeoisie. So if it is a bourgeois project, it would be wiser to oppose it.

Quote:
Thus, the struggle of homosexuals for equality, and their "right" to marry each other, is very much a bourgeois issue, just like before the woman's struggle to elect officials and be exploited in the workforce just like a man was/is a bourgeois issue.

I don't think this is only a bourgeois issue, because even under socialism, this issue isn't resolved. And I'm not sure you can entierly solve this issue under capitalism. Therefore the question of equality of women is also a proletarian issue.

Quote:
I don't understand what he means by that. That communists involved in women's causes were phillistines? That's rather nasty, and slanders many great Marxist, starting with Engels.

No, it's the contrary. He means that if you don't get involved in women's causes, you are a phillistine. In Lenin's writings, phillistine means both bourgeois and narrow-minded.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2012, 11:31
Che Burashka wrote:
So, you mean than in 1930's russian society homosexuals were thought to have a tendency to be pedophiles?
Because that wasn't true back then as it isn't now.

So Homosexuality is always to have a single tendency, no matter how far removed in history? That all developments in homosexuality will always lead to a certain and familiar path? This is liberal rubbish... There is no objectivity among Homosexuals, and thus its developments relative to society is relative.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3822
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 18 Nov 2012, 03:16
It's up to you to source and back up why homosexuals had a tendency to be pedophiles in the USSR in the 30's. Because saying that is the same as saying x kind of people had that tendency. Or that heterosexuals had that tendency.

There is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Except for the gender of the person they have sex.

Once again. Can someone give a good reason why they shouldn't marry??


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 18 Nov 2012, 05:20
OP-Bagration wrote:
It's not sufficient to say everyone is equal, because homosexuality is a social practice. Being black, or being a woman, isn't a social practice. But homosexuality has a relation with the organization of society. Therefore we can say that sexuality doesn't matter and that everyone should be equal, even the polygamist or polyandrous, as long as the basis of human relation is "love". But we can also say that to a socialist society corresponds a form of sexuality, and therefore refuse to recognize other forms of sexualities such as homosexuality. Or recognize both heterosexuality and homosexuality as long as there is a "coupe", but repress other forms of sexuality. Otherwise, we could tolerate, but refuse to recognize. The last question is whether heterosexual sexuality is normal and the other ones are degenerated.


Why should we tolerate but not recognize a given practice? That's duplicious.

And if these are social practices, under what basis are we to repress them? The key point here is that Marxism unmasks morals or "normalcy" as social practices and categories; so that you cannot alude to a "normal" or a "given form of sexuality" in order to repress others.

Other social formations will ideologically mask their given form of sexuality as the correct one and act out against "deviancies", but socialism will not. Perhaps one form of sexuality will prevail more, but there will be no legitimate reason to repress others.

Quote:
There is also health issues with sodomy or libertinism.


If so, they should be addressed as a health issue, not a legal one.

I was talking about the problem with incest, in that they would produce offsprings with health issues. That's a lot more serious than venereal diseases or the tearing of anal tissue; neither of the last two warrants a banning of those practices.

Plus, you'd hardly be preventing sodomy by not allowing gay marriage.

Quote:
Sometimes we support bourgeois projects, especially against the old society. But once the old society is down, we must oppose the bourgeoisie. So if it is a bourgeois project, it would be wiser to oppose it.


No, because discrimination is largely an atavism from old practices.

Quote:
I don't think this is only a bourgeois issue, because even under socialism, this issue isn't resolved. And I'm not sure you can entierly solve this issue under capitalism. Therefore the question of equality of women is also a proletarian issue.


I already said that it wouldn't be resolved under capitalism, because of it's unequal nature. It doesn't mean that it doesn't derive from bourgeois ideology and it's ideal of "rights".

Quote:
He means that if you don't get involved in women's causes, you are a phillistine. In Lenin's writings, phillistine means both bourgeois and narrow-minded.


Ah, ok, I took it the other way.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2012, 05:43
Che Burashka wrote:
It's up to you to source and back up why homosexuals had a tendency to be pedophiles in the USSR in the 30's. Because saying that is the same as saying x kind of people had that tendency. Or that heterosexuals had that tendency.


"'Iagoda reportedly wrote to Joseph Stalin that the legislation was a matter of state security because of the establishment of "networks of salons, centers, dens, groups and other organized formations of pederasts, with the eventual transformation of these organizations into outright espionage cells.... Pederast activists, using the castelike exclusivity of pederastic circles for plainly counterrevolutionary aims, had politically demoralized various social layers of young men, including young workers, and even attempted to penetrate the army and navy." [...]

Extra-legal raids in Moscow and Leningrad in which 130 males were arrested in late summer 1933 were the harbinger of the re-criminalization of male homosexuality later that year. The men were accused of being "pederasts"--adult males who have sex with boys."
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php

Quote:
Once again. Can someone give a good reason why they shouldn't marry??

There isn't really one if you're of the mind-set of someone who is pro-gay marriage. I just think societies should choose how to treat their homosexual populations, and not an international imperial force.
For me, homosexuality generally only exists in accepting cultures, unless there is a certain mode of conditioning that somehow reaches the population.

I'm not one to believe that people are born to be homosexuals or heterosexuals, as, even if that were true, it would contradict the very "human nature" that such a claim gets its basis from.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 18 Nov 2012, 15:16
When was the last time you consciously chose to be straight, rather than gay?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.