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: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 24 Nov 2012, 10:36
Understanding the materialist basis for an ideological viewpoint explains it, but this doesn't imply that it should be defended. Quite the opposite: showing that it is merely a social construct, gives us grounds for its critique.
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 24 Nov 2012, 22:58
praxicoide wrote:
Understanding the materialist basis for an ideological viewpoint explains it, but this doesn't imply that it should be defended. Quite the opposite: showing that it is merely a social construct, gives us grounds for its critique.

Who am I to say who is correct and who is incorrect. This issue can only be solved by society, not individual absolute moralists, and even then it will always be in danger of reaction since homosexuality doesn't have a solid worth to society that would make it a thesis. My loyalty to anti-Imperialism succeeds a few social abstracts that have nothing to do with Socialism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 25 Nov 2012, 00:40
So we shouldn't do anything at all. Ever. Because society will eventually sort it out... just like the market does, right?

Reducing Socialism to economics is why most left parties fail to reach the masses.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 25 Nov 2012, 04:57
Che Burashka wrote:
Reducing Socialism to economics is why most left parties fail to reach the masses.

Historical Materialism is not exclusively about economics.

Socialism can only be created by society. The only role of the party should be to prepare for the defense of the workers.

And I'm not very sure what you mean about "reaching the masses." I don't care too much about how we do in Bourgeois elections.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 25 Nov 2012, 05:09
Che wrote:
So we shouldn't do anything at all. Ever. Because society will eventually sort it out... just like the market does, right?

Reducing Socialism to economics is why most left parties fail to reach the masses.


Actually, it's more serious than that, and I don't think that it has anything to do with the left at all.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Who am I to say who is correct and who is incorrect. This issue can only be solved by society, not individual absolute moralists.


But, you see, you are upholding a moral ideology, justifying it with a materialist basis in order to argue in favor of oppressing a certain group, a certain identity.

This is very dangerously close to the argument made by Carl Schmitt, which in my neck of the woods is called "decisionism" (perhaps it's called something else in the Anglo world. I don't know).

Basically, he says that society looks out for its interests and therefore its moral decrees, its collective wants, are decisions that are always correct, since they are legitimized by society. The individual is absorbed by the collective, and deviations from social unity are to be oppressed.

This, though in appearance is opposed to the liberal "individiual freedom" ideology of capitalism, is diametrically opposed to Marxism, as it should, since it has nothing to do with real materialism. I don't want to say "the f word", because it's an accusation thrown so often and lightly, but here it doesn't even need pointing out.

Marxism is not about the rule of the strong, but of ending oppression and organizing society in a way that is beneficial to all. Materialism is indeed the investigation of the actual living conditions of people and the awareness that we are products and producers of these relations. However, though we are social being first and foremost, society itself it's not a subject (a "megaperson"), an abstraction, and much less an end in itself (that's a hypostasis).

Usefulness to society is certainly a valid argument, but it is not an absolute or final argument. Society is the means through which we jointly objectivize our needs and wants, through which we develop our needs and wants; society is thus important, but it is still the means for our human existence. We are dependant to society and wish to improve it, but we aren't slaves to it.

Schmitt, in justifying any social action as being a sovereign decision, abstracts away from class struggle, and gives political freedom for the most disgusting type of oppression (up to mass executions) of anything that is the target of said decision. We should be very clear in distancing ourselves from any abstract materialism like this one.
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 25 Nov 2012, 20:59
Quote:
But, you see, you are upholding a moral ideology, justifying it with a materialist basis in order to argue in favor of oppressing a certain group, a certain identity.

As stated earlier, Material philosophers don't take sides on issues like this. Homosexuals aren't exactly on equal footing with real groups of people, so your last bit of demagogy was tasteless.

Quote:
Basically, he says that society looks out for its interests and therefore its moral decrees, its collective wants, are decisions that are always correct, since they are legitimized by society. The individual is absorbed by the collective, and deviations from social unity are to be oppressed.

Sounds like he has a relatively decent grasping of Dialectics, except society's views on antithesis will be relative to conditions. A real Marxist would take into account relativity that comes with materialism.

Quote:
Marxism is not about the rule of the strong, but of ending oppression and organizing society in a way that is beneficial to all.

I don't know how you got that from my original comments, or even the person you brought forth earlier. I suggest you read more clearly. Please also don't pull out Marx's own beliefs and try to claim that a good Marxist should be like this prophet. I didn't become an anti-theist to trade Yahweh for Marx...

Quote:
Materialism is indeed the investigation of the actual living conditions of people and the awareness that we are products and producers of these relations. However, though we are social being first and foremost, society itself it's not a subject (a "megaperson"), an abstraction, and much less an end in itself (that's a hypostasis).

I didn't make any such claims earlier... I clearly distinguished society as the "conditioner," and not the absolute empirical authority. Social conditioning is not just conditioning by society- books, and the like, also have a share in this category.

Quote:
Usefulness to society is certainly a valid argument, but it is not an absolute or final argument. Society is the means through which we jointly objectivize our needs and wants, through which we develop our needs and wants; society is thus important, but it is still the means for our human existence. We are dependant to society and wish to improve it, but we aren't slaves to it.

I argued the same exact thing earlier...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 25 Nov 2012, 21:08
Havee3333333 wrote:
As stated earlier, Material philosophers don't take sides on issues like this. Homosexuals aren't exactly on equal footing with real groups of people, so your last bit of demagogy was tasteless.

Oh, but You are taking sides. The homophobic side. You're considering homosexuals not "a real group of people"?? They're not on equal footing??


"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 25 Nov 2012, 23:53
If they aren't in the same legal standing, can't officially have their partner as their family, then we're talking about oppresion. I don't see how that's "tasteless demagogy". The question is if this limitation is justified or not (the way, for example, forbidding siblings from marrying is, in my mind, justified).

And dialectically you should know that the minute you single people out and oppress them, then they become a group with common interests (ending this oppression).

But let's not lose perspective. I insist that the struggle for legal equality is one that is framed within the bourgeois ideology. We should support it, but being aware of this and the limitations it entals. "Equal oppression for all" is not desirable, but it's more desirable than more oppression on some than others.

Also, I don't know you, so I'm in not putting your socialist commitment in question. I'm saying that the argument you present is not truly materialist, and is akin to that of Carl Schmit's pseudomaterialist fascist ideology. I'm saying this in order to point out the error, not to slander anyone.

I certainly hope (and thankfully you yourself confirm this) that you are not proposing a rule of the strong. That's out of the question. However, by justifying ideology because of its materialist basis (instead of EXPOSING IT as ideology, social and contingent), you are falling for Schmitt's brand of decisionism, which is a thinly veiled attempt to justify the rule of the strong.

Look into it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

The problem with this is not "just" its conclusions, its product, but also in its flawed premises.

He talks about collective decisions, based on material conditions, which is masked ideologically. So far, so good. The problem is that this is all in an abstract sense, of a "Society" as a subject (a hypostasized society). Even though he acknowledges different "currents" within it, which may even lead to open war, he still sees these "needs" in an almost subjective way, the way bourgeois economists look at demand (as "desires").

Schmitt fails to look at real production, and fails thus to analyze capitalism and class struggle (dispossessed exploited workers and bosses). The so-called unity he proposes, and the justified oppression of dissent (minorities and so on), is just the dictatorship of the bourgeois, disguised as the "will of the people".

So, to bring it more on topic, when you explain oppression against homosexuals as being the product of a material need for reproduction, you are EXPOSING a moral aversion as just a social convention, as ideology. It doesn't justify it, quite the contrary. In explaining it, we see it for what it is.

I'm not gay, but it would seem ludicrous to me to say that I can't give my partner heathcare coverage or decide my medical fate because of an abstract desire to reproduce.
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 26 Nov 2012, 16:58
praxicoide wrote:
If they aren't in the same legal standing, can't officially have their partner as their family, then we're talking about oppresion. I don't see how that's "tasteless demagogy". The question is if this limitation is justified or not (the way, for example, forbidding siblings from marrying is, in my mind, justified).

I don't very much care for a discussion on the morals of this issue... I've just pointed out the logic behind it.

sarcastic comment removed

-Praxicoide


Quote:
And dialectically you should know that the minute you single people out and oppress them, then they become a group with common interests (ending this oppression).

Powerless and useless minorities do not set thesis, as you might know. The Bourgeoisie currently control it as they are of use to society, but once their use runs out they'll become redundant and replaced. Homosexuals, on the other hand, have no use to society, and thus they are condemned to be alienated forever.

Quote:
But let's not lose perspective. I insist that the struggle for legal equality is one that is framed within the bourgeois ideology. We should support it, but being aware of this and the limitations it entals. "Equal oppression for all" is not desirable, but it's more desirable than more oppression on some than others.

Forget that. I'm a Proletariat, and the same way I wish to bring oppression to the Bourgeoisie, I'll wish the same for others who threatened the workers' state. I don't support a Liberal Utopia where everyone is equal, no! I support the dictatorship of the Proletariat, where we oppress all that seek to threaten society.

Quote:
I'm saying that the argument you present is not truly materialist, and is akin to that of Carl Schmit's pseudomaterialist fascist ideology. I'm saying this in order to point out the error, not to slander anyone.

Yeah? Could you point out my non-materialistic arguments so I can point out how they're in fact materialistic?

Quote:
I certainly hope (and thankfully you yourself confirm this) that you are not proposing a rule of the strong.

Point out where I said this.
Quote:
That's out of the question. However, by justifying ideology because of its materialist basis (instead of EXPOSING IT as ideology, social and contingent), you are falling for Schmitt's brand of decisionism, which is a thinly veiled attempt to justify the rule of the strong.

Point out where I said this.

Quote:

Not interested in rightist rubbish...


Quote:
He talks about collective decisions, based on material conditions, which is masked ideologically. So far, so good. The problem is that this is all in an abstract sense, of a "Society" as a subject (a hypostasized society). Even though he acknowledges different "currents" within it, which may even lead to open war, he still sees these "needs" in an almost subjective way, the way bourgeois economists look at demand (as "desires").

Schmitt fails to look at real production, and fails thus to analyze capitalism and class struggle (dispossessed exploited workers and bosses). The so-called unity he proposes, and the justified oppression of dissent (minorities and so on), is just the dictatorship of the bourgeois, disguised as the "will of the people".

Why don't you point out the posts where I said anything remotely close to what Schmitt was saying. What you're doing is called a STRAWMAN.


Quote:
So, to bring it more on topic, when you explain oppression against homosexuals as being the product of a material need for reproduction, you are EXPOSING a moral aversion as just a social convention, as ideology. It doesn't justify it, quite the contrary. In explaining it, we see it for what it is.

No, the material need for reproduction is what brings about the thesis that society follows. However, the Bourgeois need for greater production is also something that brings the tolerance factor into this. I'm not a reductionist, nor am I a human naturist. I'm am a MATERIALIST, and as noted, there is no way that Homosexuality will be recognized as anything other than an antithesis until they finally manage to be materially relevant to society. Their productive capabilities yields them some influence as of today, but their reproductive capabilities threatens their security. And really, what is there to "oppress"? Homosexuality is just a state, and not a condition, and thus it isn't exactly "oppressed." It is not that society will throw them in concentration camps, no. Rather they'll disappear because without support from the Bourgeoisie they'll become redundant and effectively purged since there will be different modes of social conditioning.

Also, it is in fact your arguments that are distancing themselves from Marxist Materialism and approaching Sartrean Metaphysicism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 26 Nov 2012, 23:16
Havee3333333 wrote:
I don't very much care for a discussion on the morals of this issue... I've just pointed out the logic behind it.


Marriage restrictions are a legal issue, not a moral one. Morals are ideological and have no validity as an argument. As materialists, we can't justify a legal restriction because of "morals".

Showing the material foundation behind a moral gets us to the real argument. It doesn't justify a moral, because then all morals would be justified (in that they all, as ideological arguments have a materialist root).

That is why, again, I said that Marxism is about exposing ideological arguments as social, contingent arguments, which we don't accept as simply correct, but we see if they are justified or not.

And this is because of class struggle. Ideologies stem not from "society" in the abstract, but from different classes in order to advance their goals. Justifying a moral argument as being "beneficial to society" is pretty close to the pseudomaterialism of Carl Schmitt (which I bring out not as a "straw man", but to contrast a correct vs and incorrect method).

Biological/reproductive arguments, have a small piece of truth, but for the most part are atavisms, since currently this demographic push is not nearly as important to our current capitalist communities. I can't talk for the future, but I don't see how in a socialist society, which will hopefully bring about a greater satisfaction of basic animal needs in order to fulfill true human freedom, we will place restrictions based on thes atavistic moral arguments. Let's ban contraceptives while we're at it.
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
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 28 Nov 2012, 09:29
If we want to answer the question of "gay rights" or equality, we must, as I said, evaluate the arguments as Marxists, not as moralists. Do we have to recognize any kind of family or marriage as long as there is "love"? We should look at what Lenin answered to Inessa Armand:

Quote:
Dear Friend,

I very much advise you to write the plan of the pamphlet in as much detail as possible.[2] Otherwise too much is unclear.

One opinion I must express here and now:

I advise you to throw out altogether § 3—the “demand (women’s) for freedom of love”.

That is not really a proletarian but a bourgeois demand.

After all, what do you understand by that phrase? What can be understood by it?

1. Freedom from material (financial) calculations in affairs of love?

2. The same, from material worries?

3. From religious prejudices?

4. From prohibitions by Papa, etc.?

5. From the prejudices of “society”?

6. From the narrow circumstances of one’s environment (peasant or petty-bourgeois or bourgeois intellectual)?

7. From the fetters of the law, the courts and the police?

8. From the serious element in love?

9. From child-birth?

10. Freedom of adultery? Etc.

I have enumerated many shades (not all, of course). You have in mind, of course, not nos. 8–10, but either nos. 1–7 or something similar to nos. 1–7.

But then for nos. 1–7 you must choose a different wording, because freedom of love does not express this idea exactly.

And the public, the readers of the pamphlet, will inevitably understand by “freedom of love”, in general, some thing like nos. 8–10, even without your wishing it.

Just because in modern society the most talkative, noisy and “top-prominent” classes understand by “freedom of love” nos. 8–10, just for that very reason this is not a proletarian but a bourgeois demand.

For the proletariat nos. 1–2 are the most important, and then nos. 1–7, and those, in fact, are not “freedom of love”.

The thing is not what you subjectively “mean” by this. The thing is the objective logic of class relations in affairs of love.

Friendly shake hands!


Now look how Lenin excludes numbers 8-10. He supports the "serious element" in love, and cares about child-birth. He also believe that there is something as "class relations in affaires of love". Now if we look at the arguments on this topic, isn't it clear that some comrades refuse to recognize the very existence of such relations, and also the importance of reproduction?
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: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 28 Nov 2012, 09:57
In what ways is class struggle furthered, by "refusing to recognize the very existence" of gay people?

If it hurts the proletarian cause (and if so, I'd be amazed to hear a coherent argument that isn't based on people's religious upbringing 100 years ago) we deal with it.
If it hurts capital, we support it.
If it is irrelevant to class struggle, then we move on.
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.