/left/ - Leftist Politics

Viva La Revolution!

Mode: Reply

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

Remember to follow the rules

Max message length: 4096


IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan


Comrade 02/27/2018 (Tue) 10:45:46 Id: 56c767 [Preview] No. 3863
The USSR is gay revisionist poo and no, communism does not advocate for a gay society; it is actually quite normal for communists to be anti-gay. If you wanted to go down the "revisionist" road, you could make a strong argument being pro-gay is form of revisionism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all anti-homosexual. Engels most explicitly so, and Lenin indirectly. Almost all communist-led governments have been anti-homosexual, with basically the exception of modern day Cuba (though they were historically anti-homosexual too). Even most communist parties that have significant mass-support are anti-homosexual, such as the KKE in Greece.

Beyond all that, the greatest attacks on the male homosexual identity came from queer theorists. Queer Theory is basically a body of work that deconstructs the idea that the male homosexual is born that way. This work should be seriously studied by Marxist-Leninists. People are not born homosexuals, they are turned into them somehow. In fact, there was no such thing as a homosexual until fairly recently in history.

In short, homosexualisty is perpetuated not by the individual, but by the bourgeoisie of society into the individual's mind.
>>3863
This is probably bait, but the homophobia of Lenin, Marx and others was a product of their time. In no way is communist theory intrinsically linked to discrimination of gays. The opposite is true since it stands for a fully equal society (not a "gay society", heterosexuals actually exist too). Socialism is supposed to ensure that all groups are equal in rights, meaning that in 2018, you can hardly call yourself a leftist/progressive while being reactionary about gay rights and marriage. Any possible argument for denying gays equal rights is based on reactionary and traditionalist bullcrap about "family values" that is incompatible with socialism. Don't divide the working class by privileging some of its members over others.
Also
>People are not born homosexuals, they are turned into them somehow.
I think you know just as well as me that this is factually untrue.
>there was no such thing as a homosexual until fairly recently in history.
what is ancient greece
what is a reactionary society which pushes everyone towards being strictly heterosexual
what are social norms
>>3868
>all groups
define "group"
which bits make me horny doesnt give me some kind of attachment and camraderie with other pepole for whom the same bits make them horny. dividing people into social "groups" such as by whether you like cock or cunt is retarded and meaningless. the choice of which arbitrary, meaningless criterea by wihch people should be lumped together in that way is temporary and circumstantial. the distinction of "proleterait" and "bourgoisie" is a structural description of economic roles, dont perpetuate "social issues" parasitic attachment to anticapitalism.
>>3870
Even though gay or straight people are not literally assembled in one big group, I don't see the problem in referring to them as a "group" of people who share a certain characteristic, especially if the point is that they are being discriminated exactly on base of that characteristic. And a socialist struggle can still directly pay attention to social issues without getting caught up in idpol or losing the primary focus on class conflict - this is not a black/white distinction. What I said was about ensuring equal rights, not dividing people based on some identity bullcrap.
>>3871
You have to be able to see the problem with the phrase "Socialism is supposed to ensure that all groups are equal in rights" . It sounds like sargon of akkads description of socialism.
Anyhow, fags dont deserve to be treated any worse than anyone else or otherwise ostracised, but thats not a socialist issue. Thats not to say it shouldnt be addressed at all, or that you arent allowed to if you individually are a socialist, but its a different problem.
A socialist cause /could/ address such issues without losing focus, but what actually happens is that over time only the shit that doesnt threaten the basic structure of society survives. People only know them for the things that are basically agreeable without seeming too extreme or proposing any radical change beyond ceasing to treat people badly for certain arbitrary shit. Socialism and idpol is like rich fucks moving into a poor neighborhood and thinking to themselves they wont change its "character", or a game studio dumbing shit down but telling everyone they're totally staying true to the originals.
That said, even class struggle is losing focus of the real goal for the sake of better vulgar, simplified propoganda. booj vs prole is most useful as a way to introduce the idea of how the people who control material wealth have inherently different economic interests from those who don't, and that what it boils down to is the former having power over the world and wanting to keep it and the latter not. Dividing it up so neatly, and then correcting for that over-idealization by neatly subdividing the neat divisions, not so good on its own.

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?