Discussion on Leninist-International about Homosexuality 1998
------ part 1 of 3 -----
*******************************************
From: Krixel@aol.com
Date sent: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:13:09 EDT
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Send reply to: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Results from the election campaign in Germany
- published on Friday 25th September -
The election campaign is over and an incredible flood of phrases has come
down on the people.
Most people are considering if they are to vote for somebody who does them
least harm. There is hardly any true conviction for the parliament's
parties. And we think that this is quite significant for the character of
the elections in general. They do not at all provide a legitimation for
anything and everything after the election in the way the politicians
imagine. The sole existence of a mode for voting does not prove anything
with regard to democracy. Even the media which are closely connected with
these parties talk about the parties' distance. All the more is important
what is to be decided by these "elections". Many people feel that after
these elections the great "fleecing" will start, and there is indeed a lot
indicating this. A worldwide crisis of the much- extolled capitalist
system is knocking at the door. Therefore there is above all one thing
important: these elections do not provide a legitimation for the
extortionate measures following these elections.
Almost all parties portray themselves as "tax lowerer party", the
lowering of the "additional wages costs" being the first "deep concern"
of all of them. But it is not to be reckoned that even one of these
parties will be able to take serious steps or is even willing to do so.
In this election campaign the SPD attacked and made promises as, for
example, reversing certain single decisions (higher taxes for night work).
CDU, CSU and FDP have conducted a policy of favoring the rich, of
shifting the tax burden even more from the rich towards the poorer and
working strata. Possessors, state profiteers, speculators and artists of
tax deduction have profited from that and have in an incredible way
enriched themselves out of the long since overindebted state purse
(together with numerous politicians).
The SPD started a social agitation that during the last years the rich
virtually did no more pay any taxes whereas the share of the income tax
and the indirect taxes contributed by the bulk of the population increased
tremendously. And this is really a result of the CDU/CSU and the FPD.
Although the matter has a decade-long prehistory in which also the SPD is
involved, only after 1990 it has extremely grown rampant. Certainly it
cannot be predominantly put down to the refusal of the tax legislation in
June, 1997, by the SPD.
But Kohl's government after all can point to what would result from the
SPD's policy, what would result, for example, from the ecological programs
in connection with the Greens, and that both these parties are not
interested at all in real lowering of taxes. There is no indication at all
that under the SPD anything in this respect would improve, on the
contrary: if you look at the "ecological demands " of the SPD and the
Greens it becomes clear that in the background there are lurking bestial
unsocial demands which economically come up to total impoverishment of the
less well-off population, further desindustrialization, and which by their
consequences must lead to politically going backward and depriving the
population of its rights.
For a short moment this contradiction flared up when the Greens by their
demand to raise the gas price to 5 marks per litre laid open their essence
and a wave of indignation flooded the country. Most of all, as it is, the
tax lowering propaganda glossing things over all the way gapes open with
the real and fundamental program of the Greens. All at once this demand
made it clear to many people what green policy means in concrete practice.
The Greens since then have conducted a hypocritical election campaign in
which they put their real essential demands to the back and came up with a
lot of social slogans ("relief for the small and medium incomes", "lower
social contributions", "make labor cheaper again while raising net
income"). In fact the Greens have not only the 5-DM-demand in their
pocket. In almost every realm, by the so-called
energy-conservation-legislation, they try to gag the population with the
exception of the really rich, to completely restrict life by economic
conditions and to make it just one big prison within the state
bureaucracy. Their protection of the environment, their alleged care for
nature is nothing but pretext. It is from them that other parties as the
SPD, but also the CDU and the FDP have taken such programs with slight
variations.
In the realm of house construction and renovation of old houses and
apartments they have proposals in their pocket which, exactly as with the
5-DM-demand, make renting or upkeep an even much more costly matter as
compared to now. The poorer part of the population would have to occupy
itself with nothing but paying off the debts and burdens. If one
reproaches the Greens, who anyway is to pay for all of that, they come up
with the argument that a social compensation should be created for cases
of hardship, that one could make an application somewhere. Crippling
traffic systems is on their agenda. This will drive upwards the general
level of prices. It has to be investigated, by the way, why other
revolutionary organisations spare this ultra-reactionary substance of the
Greens or even adapt to it themselves. We, in any case, shall not have our
tongue tied about that. The SPD has taken almost all programmatic points
of the Greens in an adapted form. What kind of improvement such a
coalition after all will bring about? The population wants to get rid of
the old government, but as the alternative something is posing which would
fleece it even more, even something completely unacceptable on principle.
S u c h a n e l e c t i o n i s a n e x t o r t i o n.
Suppression of important problems
In all of the latest discussions it struck how little importance was
attached to the question of state debt. No wonder, as all of the parties
are closely involved.
Contrary to the former promises by the CDU/CSU and the FDP state debt has
grown into gigantic dimensions during their term. In view of the SPD now
playing the role of the social prosecutor because of the government's
outrages one has, however, to remind that it was the SPD which during the
government of chancellor Schmidt 1974-1982 started the horrendous state
indebtedness. The CDU during the time from 1982 - 1989 only slightly
diminished state debt. For its present dimension of at least 2,5 trillion
DM the German unification cannot serve as the predominant justification
because the government has wasted enormous tax yields giving them to rich
people and destroyed industry on a large scale which definitely could
still have been modernized, but lay in the way of its Western competitors.
The people in the new federal states know this, and therefore they don't
want to vote for the CDU again.
It is the famous intravenous drip on which the Ex-GDR is dependent,
which among others makes up the tremendous tax burden. Everything is being
done in order not to let come, as far as possible, into the citizens' view
the contradictions inherent to this state's actions, in order to preserve
the so-called stability, while the substance of the whole country, of the
whole nation is being hollowed out.
The citizens of the new federal states by the way not only inherited the
support of the old German Federal Republic, but also the state debts,
already at the time of 1989 added up to about one thousand billion DM
(after already considerable parts of industry had been shifted to abroad).
In its time of decay since about 1970 the GDR besides also was an
outspoken cheap supplier to West German companies. It was only about 10
years before that there was the threat to West German workers to shift
the production to the GDR or to Poland, if they would not keep quiet with
their demands. This also is to be concerned regarding the later decay of
the GDR's industry.
Concerning the PDS, in their program many items are in line with those of
the Greens or of the SPD. One cannot realize that there is any conception
of improving the people's situation. Regarding their main line this party
really offers its services to these parties and tries to present itself as
a "model pupil" of the German constitution. Only by stemming from the east
it cannot be proved that it is really able to perform the interests of
people's majority there. If SPD and Greens should form the government the
PDS will bear part of it when they will give the population a hard time.
In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like
the so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly deep
cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in their
election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular election
districts). If this is a part of these parties' programs, why don't they
openly offer this in their national election propaganda? This affronting
program which ties on extremly reactionary traditions ( "Emancipation"?
Not at all!), afterwards, as it seems, shall be regarded as legitimated by
the election. This is a fraud, which is supposed to be shifted to the
population.
We are thinking that at present there is no party which even anyhow
represents the fundamental interests of the majority in this country or
which represents an even anyhow sufficient concept. We are thinking that
the task of building such a party is still on the agenda. The
convulsions which are to expect after the elections will make it clear to
many people, that something new has to be built here. At present you can
only refuse to vote in an election of this kind.
For the part of the smaller parties, most of them defend positions which
are close to those of the Greens, or which make up only one single point,
or they defend extreme rightist, historically completely outdated
positions and extremely dangerous and fascist positions which may fall
back on the whole country. They are unacceptable. The last-named channel
the despair about the parliament's parties into a backward and destructive
direction. Fighting and de-camouflaging the points where they tie on,
thereby fighting their demagogy, will be one of the essential tasks for
the immediate future.
Gruppe Neue Einheit
25.9.98
Internet-Statement 8/ 98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
neue einheit
Zeitschrift fuer Politik. Oekonomie und Kultur
copyright 1998, Verlag NEUE EINHEIT (Inh. H. Dicke)
N E W A D D R E S S : Mallinckrodtstr 177,
D-44147 Dortmund
Germany
and
D-10973 Berlin, Postfach 309
Phone: +49-231-8820207 resp. +49-30-6937470
e-mail: verlag@neue-einheit.com
Internet homepage: http://www.neue-einheit.com
***********************************
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:23:09 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Gruppe Neue Einheit:
>In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like the
>so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly deep
>cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in their
>election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular election
>districts).
Eeek! The homosexuals are in the drawers of the workers parties and the
whole moral life of Germany is going down the tubes.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:01:48 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Louis Proyect wrote:
>Gruppe Neue Einheit:
>
>>In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like the
>>so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly deep
>>cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in their
>>election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular election
>>districts).
>
>Eeek! The homosexuals are in the drawers of the workers parties and the
>whole moral life of Germany is going down the tubes.
Wait a minute, I didn't read this the first time because it looked cultish.
What's this all about? Who's Neue Einheit? What cave have they been
dwelling in?
Doug
*****************************************
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:55:58 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
>Wait a minute, I didn't read this the first time because it looked cultish.
>What's this all about? Who's Neue Einheit? What cave have they been
>dwelling in?
>
>Doug
They have been embroiled with Adolfo over the PCP franchise. Rolf Martens
was a member, but I think they expelled him. They are gung-ho nuclear.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:18:57 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Initially I wasn't going to respond to this, but then I saw some of the
statements made. Let me make a few points.
The indignation shown by Gruppe Neue Einheit against the SPD and Greens
is quite legitimate and understandable. In my opinion, Schröder's
"Third Path" is the same as Blair's and Jospin's -- the path from
bourgeois workers' party to the new face of bourgeois liberalism. And
the Greens never stopped being a bourgeois party.
So is it no surprise that a SPD/Green coalition would enact anti-
working-class measures? No. Absolutely not.
But what strikes me the most about GNE's statement is the sheer moralism
of the statement. It more resembles a repentant sinner's diatribe than
a Marxist analysis.
For example, Krixel@aol.com, on behalf of NEUE EINHEIT, posted:
> But Kohl's government after all can point to what would result from
> the SPD's policy, what would result, for example, from the ecological
> programs in connection with the Greens, and that both these parties
> are not interested at all in real lowering of taxes. There is no
> indication at all that under the SPD anything in this respect would
> improve, on the contrary: if you look at the "ecological demands" of
> the SPD and the Greens it becomes clear that in the background there
> are lurking bestial unsocial demands which economically come up to
> total impoverishment of the less well-off population, further
> desindustrialization, and which by their consequences must lead to
> politically going backward and depriving the population of its rights.
Sheer moralism! Maybe its a translation problem, but it sounds like GNE
is running more on emotion than science.
And what is all this about "the population" and "the citizens"? These
terms are unscientific and non-Marxist. Marxists define their politics
on a class basis, not the nameless, faceless, CLASSLESS "people". After
all, aren't bosses "people" too?
> It has to be investigated, by the way, why other revolutionary
> organisations spare this ultra-reactionary substance of the Greens or
> even adapt to it themselves. We, in any case, shall not have our
> tongue tied about that.
Opportunism. That's why the so-called "revolutionary organizations"
adapt to the bourgeois politics of the Greens. However, the GNE also
adapts to the bosses' ideology -- in a more grotesque form (see below).
> In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like
> the so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly
> deep cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in
> their election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular
> election districts). If this is a part of these parties' programs, why
> don't they openly offer this in their national election propaganda?
> This affronting program which ties on extremly reactionary traditions
> ("Emancipation"? Not at all!), afterwards, as it seems, shall be
> regarded as legitimated by the election. This is a fraud, which is
> supposed to be shifted to the population.
Equal rights for oppressed people, in this case homosexuals, is "of no
importance"?! It would "mean an utterly deep cut in the whole moral
life" of Germany?!
This is reactionary, economistic garbage. I wonder if this is an
across-the-board opinion. After all, nowhere in this statement, from
what I can see, is the immigrant worker issue addressed. Maybe they are
also "of no importance" to the GNE?
Marxists have always stood for the rights of all oppressed people, and
German Marxism has always had a proud history of defending homosexuals
against attacks by the bourgeois state. One of the first social laws
enacted by the Bolsheviks in 1918 was the decriminalization of
homosexuality. These laws stayed on the books until the 1930s, when
Stalin re-criminalized gays.
And again, what is the deal about the "whole moral life" of Germany?
This sounds like the ultra-Right in the U.S. and their "family values"
crap. It leads me to ask: What is GNE's position on Paragraph 218? Do
they see this as a vital struggle, or would the legalization of abortion
"mean an utterly deep cut in the whole moral life" of Germany?
Finally, not once in this piece does GNE clearly talk about a way
forward. The closest they get is saying that they are "discussing the
question."
If they have to ask, then they dont have an answer. And GNE seems to
have no answers for the working class of Germany.
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
From: weklu@mail.skylink.de
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 01:36:58 +0100
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Some first comments to Martin Schreader:
>
> Marxists have always stood for the rights of all oppressed
> people, ...
What should one say about this? It´s nonsense.
Did you ever hear of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the
cardinal point of Marxism? Marxism, in the interest of the
liberation of the proletariat and of defending revolution stands
for the suppression of the reactionary and former ruling classes.
They will be oppressed to save the revolution. Should Marxists then
stand for the rights of these oppressed peoples?
Or what about fascists? Should Marxists fight them or should they
stand for their rights?
I think it´s clear. It has nothing to do with Marxism to demand the
liberation of a l l oppressed social minorities regardless of the
social and cultural content of such a liberation.
> ..and German Marxism has always had a proud history
> of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois
> state.
I cannot remember any comment of Marx, Engels, Liebknecht,
Luxemburg or Thaelmann in this sense. But I can remember
Engels who
damned the Greek because of their boy-love in his work "The
Origin...". Could you give the proof of your assertion?
> One of the first social laws enacted by the
> Bolsheviks in 1918 was the decriminalization of
> homosexuality. These laws stayed on the books until the
> 1930s, when Stalin re-criminalized gays.
The Bolsheviks canceled the sexuality laws of tsarism. But did
they say that homosexuality is an equal form of sexualitiy like the
"Greens" and the SPD are saying today? Did they propagate
homosexuality as they are doing? I´ve never heard anything like
that and cannot imagine. Are you able to name and quote the laws
you are referring to?
weklu
*****************************************
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 20:59:52 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Weklu wrote:
>Or what about fascists? Should Marxists fight them or should they
>stand for their rights?
German fascists in the past thought that homosexuals, along with Jews,
communists, 'new women,' etc., were morally rotten, sent them to
concentration camps, and murdered them.
Our own contemporary fascists everywhere also seem to hate homosexuals.
(Some things never change.)
Weklu + Neve Einheit are doing a great job furthering a fascist cause.
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 22:38:45 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
weklu@mail.skylink.de wrote:
>
> Some first comments to Martin Schreader:
>
> >
> > Marxists have always stood for the rights of all oppressed
> > people, ...
>
> What should one say about this? It´s nonsense.
> Did you ever hear of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the
> cardinal point of Marxism? Marxism, in the interest of the
> liberation of the proletariat and of defending revolution stands
> for the suppression of the reactionary and former ruling classes.
> They will be oppressed to save the revolution. Should Marxists then
> stand for the rights of these oppressed peoples?
>
Lenin liked to say that when debates using the *reducto ad adsurbum*
method, they have lost the argument. And Lenin is once again proven
correct.
Ground control to Major Tom! I'm talking about the rights of oppressed
people under capitalism! Heeellllllooo! The fact that you have to
pursue this angle of argument proves your reactionary character and
counterrevolutionary political program.
> Or what about fascists? Should Marxists fight them or should they
> stand for their rights?
> I think it´s clear. It has nothing to do with Marxism to demand the
> liberation of a l l oppressed social minorities regardless of the
> social and cultural content of such a liberation.
>
This is too stupid to be believeable! Hey, "comrade", when the hell
have you ever organized an antifascist demonstration? I'll bet never.
You're Gruppe Neue Einheit is probably like most "r-r-r-revolutionary"
groups -- a clot of middle-class intellectuals that like to play "reds".
But, when someone scratches the surface, the most reactionary stench
billows out.
In my last post, I said that GNE's moralism was bourgeois ideology. Now
we know that the influence of bourgeois ideology isn't limited to simple
expressions.
Lenin, in What Is To Be Done?, referred to the revolutionary party as
the "tribune of the people". Apparently, GNE sees an asterisk here.
The party is a "tribune of the people" so long as "the people" are white
(or, in the case of Germany, Aryan), male and heterosexual.
> > ..and German Marxism has always had a proud history
> > of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois
> > state.
>
> I cannot remember any comment of Marx, Engels, Liebknecht,
> Luxemburg or Thaelmann in this sense. But I can remember
> Engels who
> damned the Greek because of their boy-love in his work "The
> Origin...". Could you give the proof of your assertion?
>
Two words: Oscar Wilde.
> > One of the first social laws enacted by the
> > Bolsheviks in 1918 was the decriminalization of
> > homosexuality. These laws stayed on the books until the
> > 1930s, when Stalin re-criminalized gays.
>
> The Bolsheviks canceled the sexuality laws of tsarism. But did
> they say that homosexuality is an equal form of sexualitiy like the
> "Greens" and the SPD are saying today? Did they propagate
> homosexuality as they are doing? I´ve never heard anything like
> that and cannot imagine. Are you able to name and quote the laws
> you are referring to?
>
If I had the book in front of me, I would. But then, I'd be depriving
you of an opportunity to learn something for yourself. Try Thorstad's
book, "History of the Early Homosexual Rights Movement", which has a
chapter on gay-rights legislation in pre-Stalin Soviet Russia.
Regardless, the fact that you cannot (will not) progress politically on
the question of gay rights exposes you and your organization as
anti-working class and counterrevolutionary.
> weklu
>
>
For real Marxism, not moralism or bigotry in a "Marxist" guise!
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
From: Krixel@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:41:32 EDT
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Yoshie wrote:
> German fascists in the past thought that homosexuals, along with Jews,
> communists, 'new women,' etc., were morally rotten, sent them to
> concentration camps, and murdered them.
What do you want to prove herewith? The German Nazis persecuted
first of all the communist movement, but also a lot of other social or
religious or political groups of quite different character, and they
persecuted them for quite different reasons. For example, they persecuted
the religious sect „Jehovah’s witnesses“ which preaches absolute political
abstinence and in this way fanatically tries to preserve the existing
imperialist- fascist regimes. Only because of secondary dissens -refusal to
serve in the army - they eventually clashed with the Nazis and came
under prosecution. It is therefore not possible to argue that prosecution
by the Nazis automatically proves the cause persecuted to be a legitimate
one. As it is well-known, for example, that homosexuality played an
important role in the inner structures of the Nazis (as it frequently does in
ultrareactionary secret leagues), one must ask oneself which tactical
purposes the occasional official anti-homosexuality-propaganda served
with the Nazis.
Then Yoshie writes:
> Our own contemporary fascists everywhere also seem to hate homsexuals .
>(Some things never change.)
> Weklu + Neue Einheit are doing a great job furthering a fascist cause.
>Yoshie
Today’s imperialists and real fascists look quite different from the
German Nazis. Today it is the imperialist system of the West, it is the
international financial oligarchy that supresses, starves, torments and kills
hundreds of millions of people in the whole world, under the slogans of
free capital movement, democracy and human rights, whereas groups
openly posing as fascists today are but a marginal phenomenon, anyway
totally dependent on the imperialist states and their bourgeoisie, and
functioning, with their kind of „opposition“, within the frame of these
states. And this „democratic“, liberal system of today, as everybody can
see, is not „anti-gay“ at all, on the contrary. One should spend some
thinking on obvious phenomena, for example: The media which are under
the control of the Western imperialist system and frentically do its
propaganda all day long, are very much „pro-gay“. The same TV
programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will
triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti-
gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural,
most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality
are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards.
At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is
intensified even more.
One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in the
metropoles of international finance, like NY and London?
How can you accuse people who oppose this modern imperialism and
fascism, and try to throw some light on its socio-cultural fabric, to which
homosexuality is part and parcel, to „further a fascist cause“?
Has there ever been, from the part of the propagators of „gay liberation“,
an essential contribution to the struggle against imperialism? It is
enigmatic to me why such propagators, who themselves are not one
percent supporters of revolutionary struggle against imperialism, should
be supported by the revolutionary left and, for example, their cause put
on a par with the cause of hundreds of thousands of German and
European communists who gave their lives in the struggle against
German imperialism. Your posting makes me sick.
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:14:13 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Krixel@aol.com wrote:
>
> Yoshie wrote:
>
>
> > German fascists in the past thought that homosexuals, along with Jews,
> > communists, 'new women,' etc., were morally rotten, sent them to
> > concentration camps, and murdered them.
>
>
> What do you want to prove herewith? The German Nazis persecuted
> first of all the communist movement, but also a lot of other social or
> religious or political groups of quite different character, and they
> persecuted them for quite different reasons. For example, they persecuted
> the religious sect „Jehovah’s witnesses“ which preaches absolute political
> abstinence and in this way fanatically tries to preserve the existing
> imperialist- fascist regimes. Only because of secondary dissens -refusal to
> serve in the army - they eventually clashed with the Nazis and came
> under prosecution. It is therefore not possible to argue that prosecution
> by the Nazis automatically proves the cause persecuted to be a legitimate
> one. As it is well-known, for example, that homosexuality played an
> important role in the inner structures of the Nazis (as it frequently does in
> ultrareactionary secret leagues),
one must ask oneself which tactical
> purposes the occasional official anti-homosexuality-propaganda served
> with the Nazis.
>
> Then Yoshie writes:
> > Our own contemporary fascists everywhere also seem to hate homsexuals .
> >(Some things never change.)
> > Weklu + Neue Einheit are doing a great job furthering a fascist cause.
>
> >Yoshie
>
> Today’s imperialists and real fascists look quite different from the
> German Nazis. Today it is the imperialist system of the West, it is the
> international financial oligarchy that supresses, starves, torments and kills
> hundreds of millions of people in the whole world, under the slogans of
> free capital movement, democracy and human rights, whereas groups
> openly posing as fascists today are but a marginal phenomenon, anyway
> totally dependent on the imperialist states and their bourgeoisie, and
> functioning, with their kind of „opposition“, within the frame of these
> states. And this „democratic“, liberal system of today, as everybody can
> see, is not „anti-gay“ at all, on the contrary. One should spend some
> thinking on obvious phenomena, for example: The media which are under
> the control of the Western imperialist system and frentically do its
> propaganda all day long, are very much „pro-gay“. The same TV
> programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will
> triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti-
> gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural,
> most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality
> are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards.
> At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is
> intensified even more.
> One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in the
> metropoles of international finance, like NY and London?
>
> How can you accuse people who oppose this modern imperialism and
> fascism, and try to throw some light on its socio-cultural fabric, to which
> homosexuality is part and parcel, to „further a fascist cause“?
>
> Has there ever been, from the part of the propagators of „gay liberation“,
> an essential contribution to the struggle against imperialism? It is
> enigmatic to me why such propagators, who themselves are not one
> percent supporters of revolutionary struggle against imperialism, should
> be supported by the revolutionary left and, for example, their cause put
> on a par with the cause of hundreds of thousands of German and
> European communists who gave their lives in the struggle against
> German imperialism. Your posting makes me sick.
>
>
Krixel
I have some questions for you.
Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural?
Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In
other words, from whence comes it?
Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
questions must be answered.
Question #2. What homosexuals played an "important role in the inner
structures of the Nazis"? I have heard this before. To whom are you
referring?
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 23:45:20 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> Klo asks:
> >Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
> >born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural?
> >Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In
> >other words, from whence comes it?
> >Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
> >questions must be answered.
>
> I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are
> people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
> unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual?
> In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue
> on the world scene, these questions must be answered.
>
> Yoshie
>
>
My reply,
Your effort to appear witty is inane in light of the fact that I am
unaware of any controversy or disagreement among the mass of humanity
with respect to your query. Perhaps you know of scholarship or forces
to the contrary.
While we are at it, since you have seen fit to step into the picture I
will direct my questions to you as well. I await your reply.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 19:57:38 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Krixel@aol.com wrote:
>
> How can you accuse people who oppose this modern imperialism and
> fascism, and try to throw some light on its socio-cultural fabric, to
> which homosexuality is part and parcel, to „further a fascist cause“?
>
> Has there ever been, from the part of the propagators of „gay
> liberation“, an essential contribution to the struggle against
> imperialism? It is enigmatic to me why such propagators, who
> themselves are not one percent supporters of revolutionary struggle
> against imperialism, should be supported by the revolutionary left
> and, for example, their cause put on a par with the cause of hundreds
> of thousands of German and European communists who gave their lives in
> the struggle against German imperialism. Your posting makes me sick.
>
Yoshie;
There is no sense in debating this counterrevolutionary rabble. The
insurgent working class -- gay and straight -- will sweep these scum
away like they will the Social-Democrats and bourgeois parties.
His argument that there were gays within the ranks of the Nazis is a
common refrain heard from the native fascist movement in the U.S., which
likes to distance itself from its mentors.
GNE's complete ignorance of the gay rights movement proves -- again! --
their lack of connection with the working class. In the U.S., for
example, the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay-rights
organizations, was organized by gay and lesbian socialists and
Communists, including members of the Communist Party. The Gay
Liberation Front and those grouped around the magazine "Red Butterfly"
looked to various shades of Marxism for political guidance. Many of the
initial leaders of the gay rights movement were subjective communists.
And, if memory serves, Workers World Party was very active in the early
gay liberation movement. Louis can give better details than I can at
the moment.
For those of us Marxists who fight for lesbian/gay liberation, we see
homosexuality as an objective challenge to the bourgeois nuclear family.
While being gay does not mean one is "more revolutionary", the act of
coming out is an expression of a rejection of one area of bourgeois
social norms -- the same bourgeois social norms we as communists are
supposed to fight.
GNE has clearly proven it is a counterrevolutionary organization which
seeks to preserve the norms of bourgeois society. And that is only a
short step toward an organization preserving the norms of bourgeois
economy and the bourgeois state.
As a gay worker-Bolshevik, I say: FUCK YOU! Your bourgeois politics
make me sick.
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
From: Les Schaffer <godzilla@netmeg.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Krixel@aol.com spaketh thusly:
>> One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in
>> the metropoles of international finance, like NY and London?
somebody pinch me. i think i am stuck in a dream.
wait, this has got to be troll bait, right?
les
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:36:19 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
No, Les, unfortunately this is not a dream or a troll bait. The Gruppe
Neue Einheit claims to be a "communist" organization.
Martin
Les Schaffer wrote:
>
> Krixel@aol.com spaketh thusly:
> >> One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in
> >> the metropoles of international finance, like NY and London?
>
> somebody pinch me. i think i am stuck in a dream.
>
> wait, this has got to be troll bait, right?
>
> les
>
>
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:46:56 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
kloDMcKinsey wrote:
>
> Krixel
>
> I have some questions for you.
>
> Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
> born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
> unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy
> individual? In other words, from whence comes it?
> Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
> questions must be answered.
>
Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic.
Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight
to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of
religion). In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the
religious.
In the same light, communists fight for the democratic rights of gays
and lesbians. But at the same time, we need to recognize that gays
suffer oppression and inequality due to the fact they are gay. Thus,
communists fight for a social equality (as opposed to a bourgeois
equality) of gays and lesbians.
> Question #2. What homosexuals played an "important role in the inner
> structures of the Nazis"? I have heard this before. To whom are you
> referring?
>
There are rumors that Goering was a homosexual. So what? As if that
spared the hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians sent to
concentration camps? Where do you think that the pink triangle (for gay
men, black triangle for lesbians) comes from? This "symbol" was foisted
on gays by the Nazis, similar the yellow "Star of David" Jewish people
had to wear.
Gays still wear the pink triangle as an expression of the fact that we
are still persecuted and treated as "undesireables" and second-class
citizens under capitalism.
> Klo
>
>
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:26:23 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Klo asks:
>Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
>born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural?
>Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In
>other words, from whence comes it?
>Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
>questions must be answered.
I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are
people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual?
In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue
on the world scene, these questions must be answered.
Yoshie
*****************************************
From: "Walid Saba" <wsaba@netcom.ca>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:58:16 -0400
>Klo asks:
>>Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
>>born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural?
>>Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In
>>other words, from whence comes it?
>>Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
>>questions must be answered.
>
>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are
>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual?
>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue
>on the world scene, these questions must be answered.
>
>Yoshie
sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human
nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning don't you
think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get it.
*****************************************
From: "Walid Saba" <wsaba@netcom.ca>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:05:54 -0400
>Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic.
>Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight
>to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of
>religion). In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the
>religious.
>
Is there some other communism that I have not heard about? Which
communism defends the "individual's right to practice religion" ???
Communism advocates the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat, meaning
that what the working people will dictate, for the good of the overwhelming
majority of the masses, what is and what is not allowed to fester. Religion,
as the saying goes, is the Opium of the masses, and should be fought,
for the most part, as an institution that perpetuates the elite upper
class. All religions are based on the assumption that there are nobels
and commoners, classes, etc. They are to be CRUSHED. What individual
freedom you speak of? A new Marxism??? What about individual freedom
to preach racism? Facism? (which religions are both, actually!)
It seems that the unrelenting propaganda of the imperialist camp has gotten
to some of us.... with things like "individual freedom" and the like.
The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL.
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:23:54 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Walid replies:
>>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are
>>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
>>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual?
>>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue
>>on the world scene, these questions must be answered.
>>
>>Yoshie
>
>sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human
>nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning don't you
>think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get it.
While Engels was no defender of the rights of homosexuals--in his time the
terms hemosexual and heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made some
homophobic comments as well as had heterosexist assumptions, he wasn't such
a simpleton as to believe that sexuality was totally _ahistorical_. For
instance, he wrote:
Thus the history of the family in primitive times consists in the
progressive narrowing of the circle, originally embracing the whole tribe,
within which the two sexes have a common conjugal relation. The continuous
exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and more remote relatives, and at
last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making any kind of group
marriage practically impossible. Finally, there remains only the single,
still loosely linked pair, the molecule with whose dissolution marriage
itself ceases. This in itself shows what a small part individual sex-love,
in the modern sense of the word, played in the rise of monogamy. (emphasis
mine)
In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our modern parlance
sexuality) is a historical phenomenon--not a product of 'human nature' used
in a static sense.
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 23:25:48 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Walid Saba wrote:
>
> Is there some other communism that I have not heard about? Which
> communism defends the "individual's right to practice religion" ???
"The Russian Communist Party is guided by the conviction that nothing
but the fulfilment of purposiveness and full awareness in all the social
and economic activities of the masses can lead to the complete
diappearance of religious prejudices. The party endeavours to secure
the complete disappearance of religious prejudices. The party
endeavours to to secure the complete break-up of the union between the
exploiting classes and the organizations for religious propaganda, thus
cooperating in the actual deliverance of the working masses from
religious prejudices, and organizing the most extensive propaganda of
scientific enlightenment and anti-religious conceptions. While doing
this, we must carefully avoid anything that can wound the feelings of
believers, for such a method can only lead to the strengthening of
religious fanaticism." ("Religion," Programme of the Communist Party of
Russia, adopted at the Eighth Party Congress, held 18 to 23 March 1919)
and
"At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who
desired to be 'more left' or 'more revolutionary' than the Social-
Democrats to introduce into the programme of the workers' party an
explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on
religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist
fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called
their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity,
and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive
interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels
blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class
struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the
widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social
*practice*, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion,
whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the
workers' party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering. And in 1877, too,
in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest
concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion,
Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring's pseudo-revolutionary idea
that religion should he prohibited in socialist society. To declare such
a war on religion, Engels says, is to 'out-Bismarck Bismarck', i.e., to
repeat the folly of Bismarck's struggle against the clericals (the
notorious 'Struggle for Culture', *Kulturkampf*, i.e., the struggle
Bismarck waged in the 1870s against the German Catholic party, the
'Centre' party, by means of a police persecution of Catholicism). By
this struggle Bismarck only *stimulated* the militant clericalism of the
Catholics, and only injured the work of real culture, because he gave
prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and
diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the
other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and
revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois
anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of
wanting to repeat Bismarck's folly in another form, Engels insisted that
the workers' party should have the ability to work patiently at the task
of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the
dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a
political war on religion. This view has become part of the very essence
of German Social-Democracy, which, for example, advocated freedom for
the Jesuits, their admission into Germany, and the complete abandonment
of police methods of combating any particular religion. 'Religion is a
private matter': this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891)
summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy.
"These tactics have by now become a matter of routine; they have managed
to give rise to a new distortion of Marxism in the opposite direction,
in the direction of opportunism. This point in the Erfurt Programme has
come to be interpreted as meaning that we Social-Democrats, our Party,
*consider* religion to be a private matter, that religion is a private
matter for us as Social-Democrats, for us as a party. Without entering
into a direct controversy with this opportunist view, Engels in the
nineties deemed it necessary to oppose it resolutely in a positive, and
not a polemical form. To wit: Engels did this in the form of a
statement, which he deliberately underlined, that Social-Democrats
regard religion as a private matter *in relation* to the *state*, but
not in relation to themselves, not in relation to Marxism, and not in
relation to the workers' party.
"Such is the external history of the utterances of Marx and Engels on
the question of religion. To people with a slapdash attitude towards
Marxism, to people who cannot or will not think, this history is a skein
of meaningless Marxist contradictions and waverings, a hodge-podge of
'consistent' atheism and 'sops' to religion, 'unprincipled' wavering
between a r-r-revolutionary war on God and a cowardly desire to 'play up
to' religious workers, a fear of scaring them away, etc., etc. The
literature of the anarchist phrase-mongers contains plenty of attacks on
Marxism in this vein." (V.I. Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers' Party
to Religion, Collected Works Vol. 15, p. 402-413)
So, Walid, in answer to your question, that "some other communism" is
genuine Leninism -- genuine Bolshevism (communism) -- as opposed the
petty-bourgeois "communism" you practice.
Martin
P.S.: Don't mess with the Director of the Lenin Archive. ;-)
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
From: bautiste@uswest.net
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:35:52 -0600
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
>From what I understand, there are no indigenous societies in which
>homesxuality is a norm. If one extrapolates purely on the grounds that
> indigenous societies somehow represent a social form closer to nature,
>and more industrialized societies as more _artificial_, then there might be
>something to the notion that homosexuality is not natural. But then, who
>accepts the assumption that indigenous societies are _closer_ to nature?
>Anyway, this is supposed to be an anthropological fact, i.e., that no indigenous
>societies have norms wherein homosexuals live and express their sexual preference
>for members of the same sex. The implication being that it is only in
>more _urbanized_ and more rationalized societies that homesexuality becomes
>an option. This seems to be the conclusion of early Greek thinkers. I have not
>studied _all_ the indigenous societies of the world, so I accept as true, until
>proven otherwise, this fact, since the person who said is a world-renowned
>expert in indigenous cultures. If anyone would know, he would.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Walid replies:
> >>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are
> >>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
> >>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual?
> >>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue
> >>on the world scene, these questions must be answered.
> >>
> >>Yoshie
> >
> >sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human
> >nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning don't you
> >think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get it.
>
> While Engels was no defender of the rights of homosexuals--in his time the terms
>hemosexual and heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made some homophobic
>comments as well as had heterosexist assumptions, he wasn't such a simpleton
>as to believe that sexuality was totally _ahistorical_. For instance, he wrote:
>
> Thus the history of the family in primitive times consists in the progressive narrowing
>of the circle, originally embracing the whole tribe, within which the two sexes have a
>common conjugal relation. The continuous exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and
>more remote relatives, and at last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making any kind
>of group marriage practically impossible. Finally, there remains only the single, still loosely
>linked pair, the molecule with whose dissolution marriage itself ceases. This in itself shows
>what a small part individual sex-love, in the modern sense of the word, played in the rise of
>monogamy. (emphasis mine)
>
> In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our modern parlance sexuality) is a historical
>phenomenon--not a product of 'human nature' used in a static sense.
>
> Yoshie
--
http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:52:08 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Walida writes:
>The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL.
On the other hand, Marx and Engels proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto:
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of
each is the condition for the free development of all. (emphasis mine)
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 23:32:51 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
More on 'sexuality' historically considered....
Engels wrote:
This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the
most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was not in any
way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to
do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. (emphasis added)
There have been various historical forms of 'marriages' and reproduction
throughout human history. However, their existence had nothing whatsoever
to do with the ideological equation of heterosexuality with 'human nature'
until very recently (for the last hundred years or so); the dissemination
of this ideology on the world-scale is a modern phenomenon, belonging to
capitalism proper. One cannot infer forms of love and sexuality from the
fact of reproduction and forms of 'marriages,' neither of which requires
love and sexuality for their existence. For all his negative remarks upon
'Greek boy-love' + heterosexist assumptions, Engels knew that much about
the history of what he called 'sex-love.'
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 23:56:19 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Television (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany)
Krixel says this about TV in Germany:
>The same TV
>programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will
>triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti-
>gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural,
>most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality
>are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards.
>At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is
>intensified even more.
If that were the case, how wonderful!
Anyway, I would have thought that marxists were to be the VANGUARD for
social revolution, not the rear guard tailing the Church.
Yoshie
*****************************************
From: "Walid Saba" <wsaba@netcom.ca>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:08:11 -0400
Martin,
I am not just against religion, but I am also gainst Communist religions!!!!
You know what I mean here? Well, let me explain:
Marx & Co. are not Gods. And not everything Lenin ever said
is a universal truth (ie something that is true in all circumstances
and for all times...) If that's the marxism you believe in, then we
do have 2 communisms here.. Mine is not religion with prophits
Marx and Lenin, mine is a sceintific dialectic theory. So some
statement that seems a bit tolerent towards religion from Engles
does not mean communism should "respect indvidual's religious
freedoms". Like I said before, how about other equally rotten ideas?
How far do you want to go along this path?
>P.S.: Don't mess with the Director of the Lenin Archive. ;-)
Could you explain what that might mean, please.
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 00:42:13 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: L-I: The 'Defense of Marriage' Act
Krixel on this list claims that unlike fascists (whom K considers to be 'a
marginal phenomenon'--maybe K's unaware of the rise of Neo-Nazis in
Germany, the 'One Nation' supporters in Austraria, and so forth), today's
'imperialists and real fascists' are 'liberal and democratic' and 'not
anti-gay at all.'
Why, let us look at the heartland of imperialism--the U.S. Congress. Did
they not pass the (idiotically named) 'defense of marriage' act, to exclude
gay men and lesbians from the civil recognition of their relationships? In
violation of their own bourgeois constitution, that is, negating in this
case the 'full faith and credit' clause.... If the bourgeoisie and their
politicians were so sanguine in their alleged support for homosexuality as
Krixel asserts, they would be promoting 'gay marriages,' instead of
prohibiting it.
The bourgeois ideology + practice have not, historically speaking, been
keen on extending what Marx called the 'Eden of innate rights of man,' the
sphere of 'Property, Freedom, Equality, and Bentham' to sex, sexuality,
reproduction, and family, probably because the subordination of women
within the nuclear family has been very advantageous to capitalism. For
women to dispose of our bodies and minds according to our wishes as well as
to have access to material resources to become independent of men has not
desirable for capitalists.
Homophobia and heterosexism have done a great deal of harm to not only
confirmed gay men and lesbians but also all women of whatever sexuality.
Homophobia has been a mainstay of male chauvinism, in that men who dissent
from the hegemonic form of masculinity--male dominance over women--have
been called sissy. Compulsory heterosexuality, along with gender inequality
in the labor market, ties many women to men (even when men are abusive or
uncaring), for it hinders women from pursuing other forms of love and
relationships which may prove to be much more fulfilling. Heterosexuality
should be (and will be) merely a matter of individual preference, not an
institution that comes with punishment for those who do not choose it.
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:15:37 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: L-I: Why Are Many Men--Even Some Marxists--So Homophobic?
What makes many men homophobic? What are they afraid of? What makes them
compulsively insist on heterosex as 'natural,' 'normal,' blah, blah, blah?
That's an interesting question. They may secretly fear that if they stopped
saying that hetero is 'natural' + 'normal,' most of us would stop being
'straight'! Perhaps they think that if women could freely become lesbians
with no social sanction, nobody would have sex with them?
Or is it the case that they fear becoming the object--rather than the
subject--of sexuality as women have historically been, since lots of men
still (at this day and age) think of gay men as 'less than masculine'? Are
they afraid of getting fucked in the ass, which they probably think of as
the same as being treated--God forbid--'like women'?
Can such fearful men--homophobic men--make any revolution?
Yoshie
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: Re: The 'Defense of Marriage' Act
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 16:53:19 +1000
>the nuclear family has been very advantageous to capitalism.
Yes but don't non-nuclear families tend to result in more
to gender inequality?
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 09:49:11 +0100
From: Mark Jones <Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: L-I: LIST MATTERS
Martin, cut the cussing.
Mark
Martin Schreader wrote:
>
>
> As a gay worker-Bolshevik, I say: FUCK YOU!
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:17:23 +0100
From: Mark Jones <Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Walid Saba wrote:
> sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human
> nature,
Walid, care to give us your definition of "human nature"?
Mark
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:47:57 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Mark Jones wrote:
>
> Walid Saba wrote:
>
> > sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human
> > nature,
>
> Walid, care to give us your definition of "human nature"?
>
> Mark
That's the same question I asked in my book THE RELEVANCE OF MARXISM
found at:
http://www.infinet.com/~klomckin
Good question. However, to make his point Walid should have used more
all-encompassing terminology such as saying: isn't it endemic to all
animal life appropriately equipped physically.
Klo
>
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm
>
>
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:49:53 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: LIST MATTERS
Mark Jones wrote:
>
> Martin, cut the cussing.
>
> Mark
Good comment Mark. Keep it up. We need a standard like that.
Klo
>
> Martin Schreader wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > As a gay worker-Bolshevik, I say: FUCK YOU!
>
>
*****************************************
From: "Walid Saba" <wsaba@netcom.ca>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 06:01:37 -0400
Mark Jones wrote:
>> sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the
human
>> nature,
>Walid, care to give us your definition of "human nature"?
Mark, I am sure you knew that the intent there was to say "heterosexuality
has to
be the natural sexual orientation of humans..." since otherwise there are no
humans
in nature. Is that ok now, or as I fear, not quite?
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 11:17:34 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Martin Schreader wrote:
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
> >
> > Krixel
> >
> > I have some questions for you.
> >
> > Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
> > born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
> > unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy
> > individual? In other words, from whence comes it?
> > Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
> > questions must be answered.
> >
>
> Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic.
My reply,
Can't agree. If it is natural that is one thing, but if it an illness
or unnatural, then it has no more right to protection or support than
pedophilia, sado-masochism and other sicknesses.
> Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight
> to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of
> religion).
My reply,
Practice, yes. Spread, propagandize, or indoctrinate, no. If you want
a radio or TV show to spread religion, forget it. Moreover, there is to
be full freedom to spread anti-religious literature and ideas.
In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the
> religious.
My reply,
Yes and no based upon the criteria I just outlined.
>
> In the same light, communists fight for the democratic rights of gays
> and lesbians.
My reply,
Not until those fundamental questions I asked previously are answered.
But at the same time, we need to recognize that gays
> suffer oppression and inequality due to the fact they are gay.
My reply,
That's just it. Should they or should they not. I await a definitive
answer to my fundamental question.
Thus,
> communists fight for a social equality (as opposed to a bourgeois
> equality) of gays and lesbians.
My reply,
Same response.
>
> > Question #2. What homosexuals played an "important role in the inner
> > structures of the Nazis"? I have heard this before. To whom are you
> > referring?
> >
>
> There are rumors that Goering was a homosexual.
My reply,
So now we are going by rumors. I loathe Goering but I am not going to
accept your assertion simply because you heard some kind of a rumor.
So what? As if that
> spared the hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians sent to
> concentration camps? Where do you think that the pink triangle (for gay
> men, black triangle for lesbians) comes from? This "symbol" was foisted
> on gays by the Nazis, similar the yellow "Star of David" Jewish people
> had to wear.
>
> Gays still wear the pink triangle as an expression of the fact that we
> are still persecuted and treated as "undesireables" and second-class
> citizens under capitalism.
>
> > Klo
My reply,
Since you appear to be gay based upon your comments, Martin, would you
answer my original questions. I am having trouble finding someone
willing to reply.
Klo
> >
> >
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
> Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
>
> Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
>
> --
> "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
> yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
> even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
> (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
>
>
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 11:49:33 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Walid Saba wrote:
>
> >Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic.
> >Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight
> >to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of
> >religion). In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the
> >religious.
> >
>
> Is there some other communism that I have not heard about? Which
> communism defends the "individual's right to practice religion" ???
My reply,
Let's use the more accurate term "socialism," not communism. Now to
address the specific question. Socialism does defend the right of an
individual to practice his or her religion but there is no right to
spread it to others via the media etc. As long as you keep it to
yourself we can proceed.
> Communism advocates the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat,
My reply,
Not true. Your terminology is inaccurate. You are talking about
socialism, not communism. The state does not exist under communism.
I would respectfully request that you read my book.
meaning
> that what the working people will dictate, for the good of the overwhelming
> majority of the masses, what is and what is not allowed to fester. Religion,
> as the saying goes, is the Opium of the masses, and should be fought,
> for the most part, as an institution that perpetuates the elite upper
> class.
My reply,
Now you are correct.
All religions are based on the assumption that there are nobels
> and commoners, classes, etc. They are to be CRUSHED.
My reply,
I would prefer to say: "Rooted out over time." Exuberant followers
could get the wrong idea with your terminology.
What individual
> freedom you speak of? A new Marxism??? What about individual freedom
> to preach racism? Facism? (which religions are both, actually!)
My reply,
Good point.
>
> It seems that the unrelenting propaganda of the imperialist camp has gotten
> to some of us.... with things like "individual freedom" and the like.
>
> The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL.
>
>
My reply,
Not a good slogan. I would say: THE COLLECTIVE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.
Only through the collective can the individual become a fully developed
individual and receive maximum benefits. As one develops and improves
so does the other and vice versa.
The capitalist slogan is: NO COLLECTIVE, ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL which, in
reality, benefits less than 10% of the population because it is only
members of that group that have sufficient means of PD and Ex to satisfy
their wants and needs and fully develop.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 11:57:03 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> Walid replies:
> >>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic?
> Are
> >>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
> >>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy
> individual?
> >>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address
> this issue
> >>on the world scene, these questions must be answered.
> >>
> >>Yoshie
> >
> >sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be
> the human
> >nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning
> don't you
> >think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get
> it.
>
> While Engels was no defender of the rights of homosexuals--in his time
> the terms hemosexual and heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made
> some homophobic comments as well as had heterosexist assumptions, he
> wasn't such a simpleton as to believe that sexuality was totally
> _ahistorical_. For instance, he wrote:
>
> Thus the history of the family in primitive times consists in the
> progressive narrowing of the circle, originally embracing the whole
> tribe, within which the two sexes have a common conjugal relation. The
> continuous exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and more remote
> relatives, and at last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making
> any kind of group marriage practically impossible. Finally, there
> remains only the single, still loosely linked pair, the molecule with
> whose dissolution marriage itself ceases. This in itself shows what a
> small part individual sex-love, in the modern sense of the word,
> played in the rise of monogamy. (emphasis mine)
>
> In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our modern parlance
> sexuality) is a historical phenomenon--not a product of 'human nature'
> used in a static sense.
>
> Yoshie
My reply,
What are you contending Engels is saying? Your point is unclear. Are
you saying Engels is contending that sex-love came on the scene at a
particular point in history? And what is human nature? Where does
Engels validate its reality? And what do you mean by a "static sense?"
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:27:26 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> More on 'sexuality' historically considered....
>
> Engels wrote:
>
> This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among
> the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was
> not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had
> nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of
> convenience. (emphasis added)
>
> There have been various historical forms of 'marriages' and
> reproduction throughout human history. However, their existence had
> nothing whatsoever to do with the ideological equation of
> heterosexuality with 'human nature' until very recently (for the last
> hundred years or so); the dissemination of this ideology on the
> world-scale is a modern phenomenon, belonging to capitalism proper.
> One cannot infer forms of love and sexuality from the fact of
> reproduction and forms of 'marriages,' neither of which requires love
> and sexuality for their existence. For all his negative remarks upon
> 'Greek boy-love' + heterosexist assumptions, Engels knew that much
> about the history of what he called 'sex-love.'
>
> Yoshie
My reply,
Yoshie. You are switching the subject. We are not talking about the
development of marriage and sex-love. We are talking about whether or
not homosexuality is natural or not.
Klo
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:29:42 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Television (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany)
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> Krixel says this about TV in Germany:
> >The same TV
> >programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will
> >triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti-
> >gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural,
> >most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality
> >are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards.
> >At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is
> >intensified even more.
>
> If that were the case, how wonderful!
>
> Anyway, I would have thought that marxists were to be the VANGUARD for
> social revolution, not the rear guard tailing the Church.
>
> Yoshie
>
>
My reply,
Before you lead you should make sure of the nature of what you are
leading. And that is what I am trying to determine.
Klo
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:51:00 +1000
Walid:
>Mark, I am sure you knew that the intent there was to say
>"heterosexuality has to be the natural sexual orientation
>of humans..." since otherwise there are no humans in
>nature. Is that ok now, or as I fear, not quite?
Actually if everyone was heterosexual, the population
explosion would be accelerated - possibly putting humanity
into some sort of environmental armageddon before we have
the scientific power to deal with it. Maybe this is the
case even now.
If homosexuality was increased from 10% to maybe 20% or
30%, the population would increase at a much slower rate
and the world would not need to adopt a one child, or
two children policy. That is unless ofcourse homosexuals
do not begin adopting children themselves.
So Walid, if homosexuals do not affect you or others
negatively in anyway, they are perhaps doing the world
a favour by just being who they are. If it is good
for humanity then it is surely human nature. Both
sexualities have there roles to play.
I do recall a television documentary that described a
species of primate where each individual practiced both
homosexuality and heterosexuality. I don't know what
that is called, but observations have shown that this
primate society is almost completely peaceful. Is this
then the nature of this species because it happens? What
do you say?
Unfortunately, since homosexuality has never really been
accepted, there aren't social norms that govern its
practice except that homosexuality is bad. Heterosexuality
on the other hand has moved from polygamy to monogamy
because polygamy is seen as a source of gender inequality
and other social problems. So today we have the two party
institution we call marriage. There is no real homosexual
equivalent - no life long obligation, no restriction to
contain the spread of STDs. Prohibiting it was never a
solution - it can only make things worse. You can't pretend
something is not there.
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:24:32 +0000
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
One question for Yoshie and the Director of the (Lenin) Trotsky
Internet Archive. What is their opinion of the rights of those
who practice incest? For example father-daughter, father-son,
mother-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, brother-brother,
sister-sister? After all, defending incestuous relationships would be
an even more direct attack on the bourgeois family causing it to
dissolve, and in corollary, advance the cause of (proletarian)
revolution. Would'nt it?
Sid
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 08:40:03 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
>One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in the
>metropoles of international finance, like NY and London?
I am not sure about London, but NY is a headquarters of world Jewry. As is
commonly understood, the Jews are sponsors of Bolshevism and homosexuality
everywhere they go.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor@SISURB.FILO.UBA.AR>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:50:25 +0000
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
El 3 Oct 98 a las 8:40, Louis Proyect nos dice(n):
> >One more question: why is homosexuality rampant
> >particularly in the metropoles of international finance,
> >like NY and London?
>
> I am not sure about London,
[snip]
> Louis Proyect
You'd know better, Lou. Think of Disraeli...
;)
Nestor.
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:45:16 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
John Ky wrote:
>
> Klo:
> >Let's use the more accurate term "socialism," not communism. Now to
> >address the specific question. Socialism does defend the right of an
> >individual to practice his or her religion but there is no right to
> >spread it to others via the media etc. As long as you keep it to
> >yourself we can proceed.
>
> Such Irony. Some religions require preaching for practice. To not
> preach is to not practice. What do we do then?
>
> All the best,
>
> John Ky
>
>
My reply,
Whether they call preaching, practice, or vice versa is of no import.
The fact is that they will not be allowed to propagandize or proselytize
any more than pornographers will be allowed to openly sell their wares.
If they deem that a restriction on their religion, then so be it.
That's the way it's going to be. Religious or parochial schools, for
example, are out of bounds. Even in capitalist countries where religion
is actively promoted, many limitations exist. Playing with snakes and
drinking deadly things according to Mark 16 have been ruled illegal by
the courts. Transfusions are required of Jehovah's Witnesses even
though to them that is equivalent to the drinking of blood and contrary
to Exodus. Christian Scientists have killed their children because of
James 5:14 and prayer overdose. Even the capitalists realize that
sooner or later sanity has to come into play.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:54:25 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate
Martin Schreader wrote:
>
> Charles;
>
> I understand your concerns, but the NEUE EINHEIT issue has already went
> beyond its original frontiers. We are now debating the question of
> whether Marxists should fight for gay liberation: Yoshie and I say yes,
> Walid and NE say no, and Klo has questions (which I hope I answered).
Martin
Thanks for accurately stating my position. That often does not happen.
You sent me a well-considered reply to this issue off camera and I wish
you would post it to the LI because it goes to the meat of the matter.
>
> This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time.
With that I agree.
As I commented in
> earlier posts, Marxists defend oppressed people under capitalism, and
> seek to build a Leninist party that is a "tribune of the people", which
> includes gay and lesbian workers.
That's the issue and you are begging the question. Should Marxists
defend gays and lesbians? Marxists defend oppressed people when they
deserve to be defended. The question is whether or not gays and
lesbians deserve to be defended. I am still gathering data as to
whether or not it is natural.
Klo
The question of fighting for gay
> rights is a central debate for communists, not a distraction.
>
> Martin
>
> Charles F. Moreira wrote:
> >
> > Comrades,
> >
> > This link http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm provided at
> > the bottom of the post by bautiste@uswest.net who wrote:-
>
> --
> Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
> Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
>
> Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
>
> --
> "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
> yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
> even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
> (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
>
>
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:59:10 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
John Ky wrote:
>
> Klo:
> >Yoshie. You are switching the subject. We are not talking
> >about the development of marriage and sex-love. We are talking
> >about whether or not homosexuality is natural or not.
>
> A caesarian is not natural but is sometimes required.
>
> But that doesn't seem to use the definition of the word "natural"
> which you use. Exactly what do you mean by natural?
>
>
Since you are balking at the word "natural," then I will rephrase my
question. Is homosexuality an illness, a perversion if you will, or is
it normal? Are homosexuals in need of mental health treatment or its
equivalent?
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 16:45:16 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
João Paulo Monteiro wrote:
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
>
> > We are talking about whether or
> > not homosexuality is natural or not.
> >
>
> Klo,
>
> Of course, there are genetic and endocrinological factors that favour
> homosexuality. But one cannot say that such and such people were *born*
> homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter). So, if this is the only
> condition under which you would tolerate homosexuality, I don't think it
> occurs at all.
>
> Homesexuality is a choice.
My reply,
So you are saying it is a choice. It is not natural; it is a
perversion, an illness. Is that correct?
It is caused by a very wide reunion and
> reciprocal influence of natural and social factors.
Now you are saying it is not a choice. It has natural causes. To what
social factors are your referring?
The result being that
> some people find more pleasure and gratification in homosexual relations
> than in the heterosexual norm.
You are focusing on choice again.
The proof that homosexuality is "natural" is
> that it exists.
Now you are back to "it's natural." Apparently you are saying it is a
blend of the two. In that case, would care to give the percentage
influence of each? Murder exists too. Is that natural. Rape exists.
Is that natural.
Over the ages and across many different cultural universes,
> a very great number of people have made that choice, sometimes at great
> personal risk and against all odds.
Now you are back to choice again.
>
> So the problem is not if homosexuality is "natural" (that is, in your
> sense, imposed with irresistible force on some people by natural factors).
I disagree. That goes to the essence of the issue. You are
flip-flopping and ducking the issue.
> The problem is one of knowing if a society should promote or/and enforce a
> given pattern of sexual behaviour to its members.
No. The problem is one of determining which behaviors are natural and
should be accepted and which are not. You are asking a different
question: Should society prevent or allow a given pattern of behavior.
But until a determination is made as to whether or not that pattern is
"normal," society can't act responsibly or intelligently. In a sense,
you have the cart before the mule and by muddying the waters you have
stymied society from both making a decision and acting.
>
> The answer is not as simple as some liberal PC optimists would assume.
You are not clearing up those muddy waters.
No
> human society has ever existed without its sexual taboos. Sex is indeed a
> public matter. It spills over continuously to questions of social order.
> Some societies can permit themselves a certain permissiveness and tolerance
> that others can't.
The question is: Should homosexuality be a taboo. We are talking about
a specific form of sex, not sex in general.
>
> Can we accept sexual slavery? Incest? Pedophilia? (I believe many
> conceivable relations that could fall under all of these cathegories are
> indeed acceptable, but social normativity is not about individual cases -
> it's about establishing an abstract norm.)
So you are saying sexual slavery, incest, and pedophilia are acceptable
under certain conditions in this society? Is that correct?
>
> As regards homosexuality, I am positively sure we can and we should.
And what should it be. We are back to square one.
> Attempts at depicting homosexuality as bourgeois and decadent are pure
> lunacy. The "new man" we are all struggling for can be straight or
> gay/lesbian, as (s)he wishes and pertains to his/hers self-fulfillment.
Now you are saying it is a matter of choice again. Pinning you down on
this issue is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Klo
>
> João Paulo Monteiro
>
>
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:10:13 +0800
From: "Charles F. Moreira" <cfm@pc.jaring.my>
To: "leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu" <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: Beware of this debate
Comrades,
This link http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm provided at
the bottom of the post by bautiste@uswest.net who wrote:-
========================================================================
Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:35:52 -0600
From: bautiste@uswest.net
Reply-To:leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
References: 1
>From what I understand, there are no indigenous societies in which homesxuality is a norm.
If one extrapolates purely on the grounds that indigenous societies somehow represent a
social form closer to nature, and more industrialized societies as more _artificial_, then there
might be something to the notion that homosexuality is not natural.
But then, who accepts the assumption that indigenous societies are
_closer_ to nature? Anyway, this is supposed to be an anthropological
fact, i.e., that no indigenous societies have norms wherein homosexuals
live and express their sexual preference for members of the same sex.
The implication being that it is only in more _urbanized_ and more
rationalized societies that homesexuality becomes an option.
This seems to be the conclusion of early Greek thinkers. I have not
studied _all_ the indigenous societies of the world, so I accept as
true, until proven otherwise, this fact, since the person who said is a
world-renowned expert in indigenous cultures.
If anyone would know, he would.
========================================================================
I don't know enough about indigenous societies to argue with this guy
above but have I gone to the site and consider that it smacks of
reformist liberal and in some cases anti-communist, right-wing kind of
anti-establishment slant.
Furthermore, this person who posted this does not give his name, which
is suspiscious.
There are many links to articles in Atlantic Monthly and Boston Review.
Perhaps our American comrades can tell us what these magazines are.
About a month or so ago, I visited an anti-communist site run by what
appears to be a neo-nazi, ultra-rightest group in the Niagara Falls area
and they were talking about how to counter the growing presence on the
Net and use of the Net by Communist organisations.
Links there let to publications like New American and I noticed that
web pages there are uncompromisingly in the Letter Size format used in
North America as opposed to the A4 format used elsewhere.
Apart from the fact that it makes reading such pages difficult since
one has to scroll left and right, IMHO it reflects a certain
parochialism which would be expected of such rightists.
Its no big deal really but I thought we should just be aware of this
likelihood.
This Neus Einheit thing has really stirred up a hornet's nest on the
L-I but it might be a distraction.
Yours Fraternally
Charles
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:34:56 +0000
Subject: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1
There are a number of issues to related to the sexual (hetero, homo,
etc) question. There is both a private and a social
dimension related to the issue of sex, i.e. a contradiction.
1) Bourgeois liberals and feminists emphasize the sexual freedom
mostly w.r.t. to the private sphere (e.g. the right to dispose of
their own bodies as they see fit) without analyzing the
consequences or results of their prescriptions for a particular
society. A part of this protest may arise from a desire
to justify one own's particular lifestyle in front of the court of
bourgeois and 'respectable' public opinion and call for tolerance
towards themselves.This aspect was severely criticized by Lenin.
2) The social consequences of individual human behavior in a
particular society at a particular moment of time. For example,
should sexual hedonism or incest be promoted? Will it advance the
revolutionary movement ot hinder it? Are they signs of freedom or of
its opposite?
These aspects were very clearly analyzed by Lenin in the talk he had
with Clara Zetkin. Since neither Yoshie nor our indignant Director of
the Trotsky Archive have provided us with any comprehensive
statements on the sexual question from the founders of Marxism, I
enclose a few quotes from the interview below (the complete text of
the interview is available at http://www.blythe.org/mlm/ in the
Feminism section).
The defense of people who are being truly persecuted by the
capitalist state or society for their sexual lifestyle has to be
unconditional in my opinion. However, that does not or should not
imply that a particular type of sexual lifestyle has to be actively
promoted by the socialists and communists.
Here is comrade Lenin.
Sid
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM CLARA ZETKIN'S INTERVIEW OF LENIN: PART 1
(http://www.blythe.org/mlm/)
.........
I have heard strange things about that from Russian and German
comrades. I must tell you what I mean. I understand that in Hamburg a
gifted Communist woman is bringing out a newspaper for prostitutes,
and is trying to organise them for the revolutionary struggle. Now
Rosa, a true Communist, felt and acted like a human being when she
wrote an article in defence of prostitutes who have landed in jail for
violating a police regulation concerning their sad trade. They are
unfortunate double victims of bourgeois society. Victims, first, of
its accursed system of property and, secondly, of its accursed moral
hypocrisy. There's no doubt about this. Only a coarse-grained and
short-sighted person could forget this. To understand this is one
thing, but it is quite another thing _ how shall I put it? _ to
organise the prostitutes as a special revolutionary guild contingent
and publish a trade union paper for them. Are there really no
industrial working women left in Germany who need organising, who need
a newspaper, who should be enlisted in your struggle? This is a morbid
deviation. It strongly reminds me of the literary vogue which made a
sweet madonna out of every prostitute. Its origin was sound too:
social sympathy, and indignation against the moral hypocrisy of the
honourable bourgeoisie. But the healthy principle underwent bourgeois
corrosion and degenerated. The question of prostitution will confront
us even in our country with many a difficult problem. Return the
prostitute to productive work, find her a place in the social economy
_ that is the thing to do. But the present state of our economy and
all the other circumstances make it a difficult and complicated
matter. Here you have an aspect of the woman problem which faces us in
all its magnitude, after the proletariat has come to power, and
demands a practical solution. It will still require a great deal of
effort here in Soviet Russia. But to return to your special problem in
Germany. Under no circumstances should the Party look calmly upon such
improper acts of its members. It causes confusion and splits out
forces. Now what have you done to stop it?"
Before I could answer Lenin continued:
"The record of your sins, Clara, is even worse. I have been told that
at the evenings arranged for reading and discussion with working
women, sex and marriage problems come first. They are said to be the
main objects of interest in your political instruction and educational
work. I could not believe my ears when I heard that. The first state
of proletarian dictatorship is battling with the
counter-revolutionaries of the whole world. The situation in Germany
itself calls for the greatest unity of all proletarian revolutionary
forces, so that they can repel the counter-revolution which is pushing
on. But active Communist women are busy discussing sex problems and
the forms of marriage _ 'past, present and future'. They consider it
their most important task to enlighten working women on these
questions.
"It is said that a pamphlet on the sex question written by a Communist
authoress from Vienna enjoys the greatest popularity. What rot that
booklet is! The workers read what is right in it long ago in Bebel.
Only not in the tedious, cut-and-dried form found in the pamphlet but
in the form of gripping agitation that strikes out at bourgeois
society. The mention of Freud's hypotheses is designed to give the
pamphlet a scientific veneer, but it is so much bungling by an
amateur. Freud's theory has now become a fad. I mistrust sex theories
expounded in articles, treatises, pamphlets, etc. _ in short, the
theories dealt with in that specific literature which sprouts so
luxuriantly on the dung heap of bourgeois society. I mistrust those
who are always absorbed in the sex problems, the way an Indian saint
is absorbed in the contemplation of his navel. It seems to me that
this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere
hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal
need. It springs from the desire to justify one's own abnormal or
excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for
tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality
is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No
matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it
is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. Intellectuals and
others like them are particularly keen on this. There is no room for
it in the Party, among the class-conscious, fighting proletariat. "
............
Besides; and this isn't the least important point, Solomon the Wise
said there is a time for everything. I ask you, is this the time to
keep working women busy for months at a stretch with such questions as
how to love or be loved, how to woo or be wooed? This, of course, with
regard to the 'past, present and future', and among the various races.
And it is proudly styled historical materialism. Nowadays all the
thoughts of Communist women, of working women, should be centred on
the proletarian revolution, which will lay the foundation, among other
things, for the necessary revision of material and sexual relations.
Just now we must really give priority to problems other than the forms
of marriage prevalent among Australia's aborigines, or marriage
between brother and sister in ancient times. For the German
proletariat, the problem of the Soviets, of the Versailles Treaty [3]
and its impact on the lives of women, the problem of unemployment, of
falling wages, of taxes and many other things remain the order of the
day. To be brief, I am still of the opinion that this sort of
political and social education of working women is wrong, absolutely
wrong. How could you keep quiet about it? You should have set your
authority against it."
I told my fervent friend that I had never failed to criticise and to
remonstrate with the leading women comrades in various places. But, as
he knew, no prophet is honoured in his own country or in his own
house. By my criticism I had drawn upon myself the suspicion that
"survivals of a Social-Democratic attitude and old-fashioned
philistinism were still strong" in my mind. However, in the end my
criticism had proved effective. Sex and marriage were no longer the
focal point in lectures at discussion evenings. Lenin resumed the
thread of his argument.
"Yes, yes, I know that," he said. "Many people rather suspect me of
philistinism on this account, although such an attitude is repugnant
to me _ it conceals so much narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy. Well, I'm
unruffled by it. Yellow-beaked fledgelings newly hatched from their
bourgeois-tainted eggs are all so terribly clever. We have to put up
with that without mending our ways. The youth movement is also
affected with the modern approach to the sex problem and with
excessive interest in it."
Lenin emphasised the word "modern" with an ironical, deprecating
gesture.
"I was also told that sex problems are a favourite subject in your
youth organisations too, and that there are hardly enough lecturers on
this subject. This nonsense is especially dangerous and damaging to
the youth movement. It can easily lead to sexual excesses, to
overstimulation of sex life and to wasted health and strength of young
people. You must fight that too. There is no lack of contact between
the youth movement and the women's movement. Our Communist women
everywhere should cooperate methodically with young people. This will
be a continuation of motherhood, will elevate it and extend it from
the individual to the social sphere. Women's incipient social life and
activities must be promoted, so that they can outgrow the narrowness
of their philistine, individualistic psychology centred on home and
family. But this is incidental.
(continued in Part 2)
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:34:56 +0000
Subject: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
FROM CLARA ZETKIN'S INTERVIEW OF LENIN: PART 2
(http://www.blythe.org/mlm/)
"In our country, too, considerable numbers of young people are busy
'revising bourgeois conceptions and morals' in the sex question. And
let me add that this involves a considerable section of our best boys
and girls, of our truly promising youth. It is as you have just said.
In the atmosphere created by the aftermath of war and by the
revolution which has begun, old ideological values, finding themselves
in a society whose economic foundations are undergoing a radical
change, perish, and lose their restraining force. New values
crystallise slowly, in the struggle. With regard to relations between
people, and between man and woman, feelings and thoughts are also
becoming revolutionised. New boundaries are being drawn between the
rights of the individual and those of the community, and hence also
the duties of the individual. Things are still in complete, chaotic
ferment. The direction and potentiality of the various contradictory
tendencies can still not be seen clearly enough. It is a slow and
often very painful process of passing away and coming into being. All
this applies also to the field of sexual relations, marriage, and the
family. The decay, putrescence, and filth of bourgeois marriage with
its difficult dissolution, its licence for the husband and bondage for
the wife, and its disgustingly false sex morality and relations fill
the best and most spiritually active of people with the utmost
loathing.
"The coercion of bourgeois marriage and bourgeois legislation on the
family enhance the evil and aggravate the conflicts. It is the
coercion of 'sacrosanct' property. It sanctifies venality, baseness,
and dirt. The conventional hypocrisy of 'respectable' bourgeois
society takes care of the rest. People revolt against the prevailing
abominations and perversions. And at a time when mighty nations are
being destroyed, when the former power relations are being disrupted,
when a whole social world is beginning to decline, the sensations of
the individual undergo a rapid change. A stimulating thirst for
different forms of enjoyment easily acquires an irresistible force.
Sexual and marriage reforms in the bourgeois sense will not do. In the
sphere of sexual relations and marriage, a revolution is approaching _
in keeping with the proletarian revolution. Of course, women and young
people are taking a deep interest in the complex tangle of problems
which have arisen as a result of this. Both the former and the latter
suffer greatly from the present messy state of sex relations. Young
people rebel against them with the vehemence of their years. This is
only natural. Nothing could be falser than to preach monastic
self-denial and the sanctity of the filthy bourgeois morals to young
people. However, it is hardly a good thing that sex, already strongly
felt in the physical sense, should at such a time assume so much
prominence in the psychology of young people. The consequences are
nothing short of fatal. Ask Comrade Lilina about it. She ought to have
had many experiences in her extensive work at educational institutions
of various kinds and you know that she is a Communist through and
through, and has no prejudices.
"Youth's altered attitude to questions of sex is of course
'fundamental', and based on theory. Many people call it
'revolutionary' and 'communist'. They sincerely believe that this is
so. I am an old man, and I do not like it. I may be a morose ascetic,
but quite often this so-called 'new sex life' of young people _ and
frequently of the adults too _ seems to me purely bourgeois and simply
an extension of the good old bourgeois brothel. All this has nothing
in common with free love as we Communists understand it. No doubt you
have heard about the famous theory that in communist society
satisfying sexual desire and the craving for love is as simple and
trivial as `drinking a glass of water'. A section of our youth has
gone mad, absolutely mad, over this 'glass-of-water theory'. It has
been fatal to many a young boy and girl. Its devotees assert that it
is a Marxist theory. I want no part of the kind of Marxism which
infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure
of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things
are not as simple as all that. A certain Frederick Engels has
established this a long time ago with regard to historical
materialism.
"I consider the famous 'glass-of-water' theory as completely
un-Marxist and, moreover, as anti-social. It is not only what nature
has given but also what has become culture, whether of a high or low
level, that comes into play in sexual life. Engels pointed out in his
Origin of the Family how significant it was that the common sexual
relations had developed into individual sex love and thus became
purer. The relations between the sexes are not simply the expression
of a mutual influence between economics and a physical want
deliberately singled out for physiological examination. It would be
rationalism and not Marxism to attempt to refer the change in these
relations directly to the economic basis of society in isolation from
its connection with the ideology as a whole. To be sure, thirst has to
be quenched. But would a normal person normally lie down in the gutter
and drink from a puddle? Or even from a glass whose edge has been
greased by many lips? But the social aspect is more important than
anything else. The drinking of water is really an individual matter.
But it takes two people to make love and a third person, a new life,
is likely to come into being. This deed has a social complexion and
constitutes a duty to the community.
"As a Communist I have no liking at all for the 'glass-of-water'
theory, despite its attractive label: 'emancipation of love.' Besides,
emancipation of love is neither a novel nor a communistic idea. You
will recall that it was advanced in fine literature around the middle
of the past century as 'emancipation of the heart'. In bourgeois
practice it materialised into emancipation of the flesh. It was
preached with greater talent than now, though I cannot judge how it
was practiced. Not that I want my criticism to breed asceticism. That
is farthest from my thoughts. Communism should not bring asceticism,
but joy and strength, stemming, among other things, from a consummate
love life. Whereas today, in my opinion, the obtaining plethora of sex
life yields neither joy nor strength. On the contrary, it impairs
them. This is bad, very bad, indeed, in the epoch of revolution.
"Young people are particularly in need of joy and strength. Healthy
sports, such as gymnastics, swimming, hiking, physical exercises of
every description and a wide range of intellectual interests is what
they need, as well as learning, study and research, and as far as
possible collectively. This will be far more useful to young people
than endless lectures and discussions on sex problems and the
so-called living by one's nature. Mens sana in corpore sano. Be
neither monk nor Don Juan, but not anything in between either, like a
German philistine. You know the young comrade X. He is a splendid lad,
and highly gifted. For all that, I am afraid that he will never amount
to anything. He has one love affair after another. This is not good
for the political struggle and for the revolution. I will not vouch
for the reliability or the endurance of women whose love affair is
intertwined with politics, or for the men who run after every
petticoat and let themselves in with every young female. No, no, that
does not go well with revolution."
Lenin sprang to his feet, slapped the table with his hand and paced up
and down the room.
"The revolution calls for concentration and rallying of every nerve by
the masses and by the individual. It does not tolerate orgiastic
conditions so common among d'Annunzio's decadent heroes and heroines.
Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of
degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an
intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of
sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the
vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its
strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the
communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity.
Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no
dissipation of energy. Self-control and self-discipline are not
slavery; Not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have
strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you
not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of
our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the
revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from
bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the
roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them
quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women's
problems."
Lenin spoke with great animation and deep persuasion. I could feel
that his every word came from the heart, and the expression on his
face added to this feeling. From time to time he punctuated some idea
with energetic gestures. I was astonished to see how much attention he
devoted to trivial matters and how familiar he was with them, side by
side with highly important political problems. And not only as
concerned Soviet Russia, but also the still capitalist countries.
Splendid Marxist that he was, he grasped the particular wherever and
in whatever form it revealed itself, in its relation to, and its
bearing upon, the whole. All his zest and purpose was concentrated
with unshakeable singleness, like irresistible forces of nature, upon
the one goal of speeding the revolution as a work of the masses. He
evaluated everything in terms of its effect on the conscious motive
forces of the revolution, both national and international, for while
he evaluated the historically conditioned features of the individual
countries and their different stages of development, he always had his
eyes on the indivisible world-wide proletarian revolution.
"Comrade Lenin, how I regret," I exclaimed, "that your words have not
been heard by hundreds and thousands of people. As you know, you do
not have to convert me. But how important it would be for friend and
foe to hear your opinion! "
Lenin smiled amiably.
"I may speak or write some day on the questions we have discussed.
But later, not now. Now all our time and strength must be
concentrated on other things. There are bigger and more difficult
jobs to do. The struggle to maintain and strengthen the Soviet state
is not yet over by any means. We have to digest the outcome of the
Polish War [4] and to make the most we can of it. Wrangel is still
hanging on in the South. It is true, I am deeply convinced that we
shall cope with him. That will give the British and French
imperialists and their small vassals something to think about. But
the most difficult part of our task, reconstruction, is still ahead.
That will also bring the problems of sex relations, marriage and the
family to the foreground. In the meantime, you will have to handle it
as best you can where and when it is necessary. You should not allow
these questions to be handled in an un-Marxist way or to serve as the
basis for disruptive deviations and intrigues. Now at last I come to
your work."
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:39:20 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Walid Saba wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> I am not just against religion, but I am also gainst Communist
> religions!!!! You know what I mean here? Well, let me explain:
>
> Marx & Co. are not Gods. And not everything Lenin ever said
> is a universal truth (ie something that is true in all
> circumstances and for all times...) If that's the marxism you
> believe in, then we do have 2 communisms here..
Agreed. But, in this case, I think Lenin's comments -- and the piece of
the Bolshevik program I quoted -- are correct.
> Mine is not
> religion with prophits Marx and Lenin, mine is a sceintific
> dialectic theory. So some statement that seems a bit tolerent
> towards religion from Engles does not mean communism should
> "respect indvidual's religious freedoms".
That is what it meant for Lenin. Go and read the full article "The
Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion" and his other main piece
(available on the Lenin Internet Archive) as well as the 1919 program of
the Russian Communist Party.
> Like I said before, how
> about other equally rotten ideas? How far do you want to go along
> this path?
>
I think you need to read more Marx and Lenin on the subject. Yours is
not a dialectical understanding of religion, but a mechanical,
subjectivist and petty-bourgeois understanding. That's understandable;
most of the "r-r-r-revolutionary left" teaches this vulgar view to its
members.
> >P.S.: Don't mess with the Director of the Lenin Archive. ;-)
>
> Could you explain what that might mean, please.
>
It's a joke! Note the winking "emoticon" at the end of the sentence.
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:42:59 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Re: The 'Defense of Marriage' Act
John Ky wrote:
>
> >the nuclear family has been very advantageous to capitalism.
>
> Yes but don't non-nuclear families tend to result in more
> to gender inequality?
>
>
On the contrary, John. Engels talks about how the bourgeois nuclear
family requires the subordination of women. Read "Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State" to find out more.
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:13:41 +1000
Klo:
>Let's use the more accurate term "socialism," not communism. Now to
>address the specific question. Socialism does defend the right of an
>individual to practice his or her religion but there is no right to
>spread it to others via the media etc. As long as you keep it to
>yourself we can proceed.
Such Irony. Some religions require preaching for practice. To not
preach is to not practice. What do we do then?
All the best,
John Ky
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 13:14:58 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate
Charles;
I understand your concerns, but the NEUE EINHEIT issue has already went
beyond its original frontiers. We are now debating the question of
whether Marxists should fight for gay liberation: Yoshie and I say yes,
Walid and NE say no, and Klo has questions (which I hope I answered).
This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time. As I commented in
earlier posts, Marxists defend oppressed people under capitalism, and
seek to build a Leninist party that is a "tribune of the people", which
includes gay and lesbian workers. The question of fighting for gay
rights is a central debate for communists, not a distraction.
Martin
Charles F. Moreira wrote:
>
> Comrades,
>
> This link http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm provided at
> the bottom of the post by bautiste@uswest.net who wrote:-
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:25:52 +1000
Klo:
>Yoshie. You are switching the subject. We are not talking
>about the development of marriage and sex-love. We are talking
>about whether or not homosexuality is natural or not.
A caesarian is not natural but is sometimes required.
But that doesn't seem to use the definition of the word "natural"
which you use. Exactly what do you mean by natural?
*****************************************
From: Les Schaffer <godzilla@netmeg.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
>>>>> ">" == Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org> writes:
>> That's understandable; most of the "r-r-r-revolutionary left"
>> teaches this vulgar view to its members.
and then on http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909-att.htm
"""To people with a slapdash attitude towards Marxism, to people who
cannot or will not think, this history is a skein of meaningless
Marxist contradictions and waverings, a hodge-podge of "consistent"
atheism and "sops" to religion, "unprincipled" wavering between a
r-r-revolutionary war on God"""
did Lenin use this r-r-r formulation, or did you just make that up?
les schaffer
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:10:31 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
> Questions of whether homosexuality is chosen or part of one's nature at
> birth is difficult to answer. This is a question for scholars. But on
> defending gay rights, there is no question. I view the Neue Einheit
> position as deeply reactionary.
>
> Louis Proyect
But it is the question that matters Lou. On defending gay rights there
is a question. You are ducking the crucial component. The answer you
give to your first sentence should determine how you act with respect to
your third sentence. It is not just a question for scholars. It is a
question that must be addressed by anyone who takes a position on this
issue. Is it natural or isn't it. Is it an illness or isn't it. Is is
a perversion or isn't it. If it is unnatural or a sickness or a
perversion, it would make about as much sense to defend it as it would
to defend the right to sell pornography or freely circulate with AIDS.
I for one want a definitive answer on this question.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:24:40 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: The Gay Question [was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT]
Martin Schreader wrote:
>
> Following is the letter I initially sent to Klo regarding the questions
> at hand. As Klo said, it does go to the "meat of the matter."
>
> Martin
>
> ========== forwarded message ==========
>
> Klo;
>
> I will attempt to answer your initial questions as best as possible.
> I'm answering this off-list for personal reasons.
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
> >
> > Krixel
> >
> > I have some questions for you.
> >
> > Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people
> > born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or
> > unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy
> > individual? In other words, from whence comes it?
> > Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these
> > questions must be answered.
> >
>
> According to the prevailing research, homosexuality is genetic and
> natural. Tests among identitical and fraternal twins (the latter more
> important to research). In those tests, when one twin was gay,
> generally so was the other. The testing also expanded to twins
> separated at birth; again, the results were the same. Therefore, it was
> concluded, homosexuality is a natural, genetic part of human life.
>
> As for the question of "illness": The American Psychiatric Association,
> which once was the progenitor of such a theory (that "homosexuality" is
> an illness), reversed its decision in the 1970s. Today, it is commonly
> regarded in psychiatric circles that any mental instability in gays and
> lesbians is as a result of discrimination and demonization from society,
> and not their sexual orientation -- i.e., stress.
>
> So, to directly answer you: Homosexuality is genetic. They are born
> that way. It is natural. It is acceptable in a mentally healthy
> individual. In other words, it comes from human nature.
Martin
Your position is well considered and well structured. However, if what
you say is true, could you answer this question?
Is there any animal in the world, other than the human animal, in which
males are sexually attracted to males and females are attracted to
females. Or is this confined only to the human species?
Klo
> Martin
> --
> Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
> Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
>
> Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
>
> --
> "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
> yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
> even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
> (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
>
>
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:32:03 +0100
From: "João Paulo Monteiro" <jpmonteiro@mail.telepac.pt>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
kloDMcKinsey wrote:
> We are talking about whether or
> not homosexuality is natural or not.
>
Klo,
Of course, there are genetic and endocrinological factors that favour
homosexuality. But one cannot say that such and such people were *born*
homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter). So, if this is the only
condition under which you would tolerate homosexuality, I don't think it
occurs at all.
Homesexuality is a choice. It is caused by a very wide reunion and
reciprocal influence of natural and social factors. The result being that
some people find more pleasure and gratification in homosexual relations
than in the heterosexual norm. The proof that homosexuality is "natural" is
that it exists. Over the ages and across many different cultural universes,
a very great number of people have made that choice, sometimes at great
personal risk and against all odds.
So the problem is not if homosexuality is "natural" (that is, in your
sense, imposed with irresistible force on some people by natural factors).
The problem is one of knowing if a society should promote or/and enforce a
given pattern of sexual behaviour to its members.
The answer is not as simple as some liberal PC optimists would assume. No
human society has ever existed without its sexual taboos. Sex is indeed a
public matter. It spills over continuously to questions of social order.
Some societies can permit themselves a certain permissiveness and tolerance
that others can't.
Can we accept sexual slavery? Incest? Pedophilia? (I believe many
conceivable relations that could fall under all of these cathegories are
indeed acceptable, but social normativity is not about individual cases -
it's about establishing an abstract norm.)
As regards homosexuality, I am positively sure we can and we should.
Attempts at depicting homosexuality as bourgeois and decadent are pure
lunacy. The "new man" we are all struggling for can be straight or
gay/lesbian, as (s)he wishes and pertains to his/hers self-fulfillment.
João Paulo Monteiro
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:44:15 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Les Schaffer wrote:
>
> did Lenin use this r-r-r formulation, or did you just make that up?
>
> les schaffer
>
It's original; Lenin used it. But the "r-r-r-revolutionary" term is
commonly used today among various groups.
Martin
--
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
--
"Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
(V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:56:45 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1
Martin Schreader wrote:
>
> Hey Chatterbox!
>
> First, I find your attempts at provocation disingenuous and quite
> disgusting. I will not debate you; IMO, your opinions on the gay
> question are the same as the ultra-right and christian fundamentalists.
>
> You are scum.
>
> Martin
>
> P.S.: I am not Director of the Trotsky Archive; David Walters is. I am
> Director of the Lenin Archive. Get over yourself!
>
> Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:
> >
> > These aspects were very clearly analyzed by Lenin in the talk he had
> > with Clara Zetkin. Since neither Yoshie nor our indignant Director of
> > the Trotsky Archive have provided us with any comprehensive
> > statements on the sexual question from the founders of Marxism, I
> > enclose a few quotes from the interview below (the complete text of
> > the interview is available at http://www.blythe.org/mlm/ in the
> > Feminism section).
Sid
I read the Zetkin interview. There was a tremendous amount on the
women's movement and their struggle for equality and justice but you
will have to show me where it said anything about homosexuality. You
are giving the impression that Lenin is supporting your position when I
don't see him doing so.
Klo
> >
> > The defense of people who are being truly persecuted by the
> > capitalist state or society for their sexual lifestyle has to be
> > unconditional in my opinion. However, that does not or should not
> > imply that a particular type of sexual lifestyle has to be actively
> > promoted by the socialists and communists.
> >
>
> --
> Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
> Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
>
> Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/
>
> --
> "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize
> yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors,
> even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'."
> (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9)
>
>
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:06:16 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
João Paulo Monteiro wrote:
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
>
> > Now you are saying it is a matter of choice again. Pinning you down on
> > this issue is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
> >
>
> I'm afraid your insistence on either natural or choice (which you immediately
> equate with perversion, illness, etc.), one or the other, reveals a complete
> inhability to think dialectically.
>
> If this is muddy waters to you, I won't be the one to clear them for you. The
> world is a very muddy place indeed.
>
> João Paulo Monteiro
>
>
My reply,
I have no problem thinking dialectically. That's why I asked for
percentages when someone claimed it was a mixture of the two. For those
who feel that it is a mixture I would like, however, a more detailed
presentation of how that operates in reality. If it is a choice, how
can it be essentially genetic. On the other hand, if it is essentially
genetic, then how can there be any real choice. Unfortunately, in so
far as I am aware this is a major issue upon which today's Marxists are
going to have to "wing it" because I am unaware of any definitive
comments on this issue by Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. I know of no
writings by the masters to which we can refer.
Klo
*****************************************
From: "Ben Seattle" <icd@communism.org>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: GABS vs. DAB -- and the future DoP
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:44:59 -0700
1) GABS vs. DAB
===============
Martin Schreader:
> We are now debating the question of whether
> Marxists should fight for gay liberation:
> ...
> This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time.
Martin, it is probably the case that the great majority on this list are
agreed that Marxists should fight against the oppression of homosexuals,
against homophobic and oppressive culture and so forth.
It is a *different question* whether it is a good use of everyone's time
and bandwidth to debate Krixel (the Neue Einheit guy) or Walid or Klo
about anything. There is nothing wrong, on a list like this, with
ignoring people who say stupid things. In fact, such a policy is often
the only practical course of action.
Yoshie has responded to them with very intelligent ridicule. In my
view, Yoshie's attitude is the correct one. When something extremely
stupid is posted--it should (1) be ridiculed, and (2) thereafter
ignored.
I do not consider Krixel or Walid or Klo to be "counter-revolutionary",
etc. They are simply very confused people who, like us, would like to
see the development of a communist movement that is worthy of the
allegiance of the working class. At the same time, they are fairly
clueless about a vast number of issues and it is a mistake to try to
educate them at the expense of *everyone else's time and bandwidth*.
What happens when you try to do this--is that the signal-to-noise ratio
of the list falls dramatically--and intelligent and dedicated
subscribers conclude that their time is being wasted--and they
un*sub*scribe. When this happens, the list goes downhill, as the
serious subscribers (who want to do something in the world) leave, and
the word-twisting, time-wasting spammers (who like nothing more than to
talk) remain.
What I believe must be fought is what I call the "give attention to
bozos syndrome" (ie: GABS). What is better is to "deny attention to
bozos" (ie: DAB). Experience will show that a high signal-to-noise
ratio can only be built with a policy of DAB, not GABS.
If you believe it *is* necessary or useful to debate
Krixel/Walid/Klo--then I suggest that, to keep the bandwidth wastage
down, you confine yourself to one post a day and urge them to do the
same. Many others would probably appreciate it.
2) The future DoP
=================
Having said that, I would like to introduce a topic that may be more
central to the development of communist theory as a force in the world.
Klo:
> Socialism does defend the right of an individual
> to practice his or her religion but there is no right
> to spread it to others via the media etc.
> As long as you keep it to yourself we can proceed.
The "media", within a few decades, will be the product of a convergence
between the present day "mass media" and the internet. Put another way:
the internet is well on its way to becomming a mass medium. Klo's
remarks tend to create the impression that the future "D of P" will
prevent ordinary people from promoting religion (or other wrong or
backward ideas) on their websites. In fact, Klo has indicated elsewhere
that this is his view. But a more narrow and clueless view of the
future DoP is hard to find. The future DoP, in a country like the US
with a modern infrastructure, will censor the public media (ie: the mass
media and the internet) only with respect to use by commercial
enterprises. Hence obnoxious advertising that promotes commodity
fetishism and which is pushed into people's faces -- *will* be
regulated. Anything backed by bourgeois or comercial resources *will*
be subject to censorship. But if individual workers want to build web
sites that draw thousands (or millions) of visitors--this will *not* be
censored--even if the views expressed are stupid and reactionary. (The
exceptions to this, such as child pornography or neo-nazi or extreme
racist propaganda--would be relatively insignificant.)
It will be the freedom of the masses to openly promote their own
views--to listen to what they like--and to denounce what they
don't--that will be the source of the invincible strength of the future
proletarian democracy.
I go into this in a little more depth, by the way, in chapter 8 of my
"Party of the Future" series, available at my website.
Sincerely,
Ben Seattle ----//-// 3.Oct.98
www.Leninism.org
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 05:02:06 +0800
From: "Charles F. Moreira" <cfm@pc.jaring.my>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate
Comrades,
Martin Schreader wrote:
>
> Charles;
>
> I understand your concerns, but the NEUE EINHEIT issue has already went
> beyond its original frontiers. We are now debating the question of
> whether Marxists should fight for gay liberation: Yoshie and I say yes,
> Walid and NE say no, and Klo has questions (which I hope I answered).
>
> This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time. As I commented in
> earlier posts, Marxists defend oppressed people under capitalism, and
> seek to build a Leninist party that is a "tribune of the people", which
> includes gay and lesbian workers. The question of fighting for gay
> rights is a central debate for communists, not a distraction.
>
> Martin
Martin,
I was concerned by the nature of the content on this link:-
http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm which is definitely not
a Marxist or progressive site by any stretch of the imagination.
The statement below posted by bautiste@uswest.net effectively says that
homosexuality was not accepted as the norm in any society whether in a
highly urbanised industrial society or in less advanced types of
societies.
While bautiste@uswest.net is correct, the argument he or she advances
seems to side with Neus Einheit's position, which is why -- coupled with
the content of the web site -- I was suspicious of a diversion.
========================================================================
Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:35:52 -0600
From: bautiste@uswest.net
Reply-To:leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
References: 1
>From what I understand, there are no indigenous societies in which
homesxuality is a norm. If one extrapolates purely on the grounds that
indigenous societies somehow represent a social form closer to nature,
and more industrialized societies as more _artificial_, then there might
be something to the notion that homosexuality is not natural.
But then, who accepts the assumption that indigenous societies are
_closer_ to nature? Anyway, this is supposed to be an anthropological
fact, i.e., that no indigenous societies have norms wherein homosexuals
live and express their sexual preference for members of the same sex.
The implication being that it is only in more _urbanized_ and more
rationalized societies that homesexuality becomes an option.
This seems to be the conclusion of early Greek thinkers. I have not
studied _all_ the indigenous societies of the world, so I accept as
true, until proven otherwise, this fact, since the person who said is a
world-renowned expert in indigenous cultures.
If anyone would know, he would.
========================================================================
OK. Given the existence of two sexes among the higher animals, including
humans, I would expect that our biological nature would tend us towards
heterosexuality in order to propagate the species.
However, homosexuality has existed for a long time, if not throughout
history based upon the fact that it is forbiden or discouraged in most
major religions.
The question then is what causes it.?
Is it due to a genetic predisposition among a certain percentage of
people (and perhaps animals), just like some people are genetically
predisposed to diabetes, hypertension, cancer, obesity and so on?
Is it due to psychological factors?
Is it due to upbringing?
Does it occur only in an urbanised environment or does it also occur in
rural and tribal societies as well?
Is it due to external influences of peers, the media?
Or is it due to a combination of one or more of the above factors?
Finally, can anything be done about it?
As far as I know from my contact with Asian society, homosexuality is
not encouraged or glorified in any culture.
However, a friend told me that even in feudal Chinese society,
homosexuality was accepted as a sort of abnormality, just as one may
regard someone with a cleft palatte.
However, the Chinese did not go around killing or beating up
homosexuals, though neither did they tolerate or advocate openly
flaunting it either.
In Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, there have always been some
transvestites ie. men who dress and behave like women and vice versa and
some have even gone so far as to have a sex change operation in
Singapore.
Once again such people may be laughed at or ridiculed but as far as I
know, never harmed.
Except for Malaysia, one reason for this tolerance IMHO is the far
eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism and so on which are very much
based on nature and thus consider such phenomena as abberations of
nature.
In Malaysia which officially is an Islamic (a Middle Eastern religion
like Christianity and Judiaism) country, transvestites and homosexuality
have come under stronger sanction, especially with the growing influence
of Islam from countries like Iran, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan.
Despite that, Anwar Ibrahim is the first person in Malaysia who has
been prosecuted under the penal code for alleged homosexuality and as
most of us realise, that is so for political reasons, since the conflict
between the Mahathir and Anwar factions is a power struggle within the
ruling United Malays National Organisation party.
In fact, Muslims here have been prosecuted under the Shariah (Islamic)
law for engaging pre-marital sex but I also haven't heard of any being
prosecuted for homosexual activities.
I'm told that even under Islam, it is not a crime to be homosexual but
it is a crime to engage in homosexual acts even privately.
So while homosexuals is officially illegal in most South East Asian
countries until recently and homosexuals cannot openly flaunt their
homosexuality, we don't hear of things like gay bashing which takes
place in western countries where it is allowed.
Recently, especially due to western influence, I've heard that gay bars
and so on have sprung up and exist quite openly in Thailand.
In fact, when I went to the island of Phuket in southern Thailand, I
saw gay bars advertsing themselves more blatantly than even in
Vancouver, Canada.
I also believe, homosexuals are quite free in the Philippines too.
However, that still beings us back to the questions I raised above as
to why homosexuality happens, which then leads us on to the question of
whether Marxists should defend homosexuals against oppression in
bourgeois society and allow homosexuals to function under a socialist
society?
I would say that Marxists should defend homosexuals (including
lesbians) against oppression and discrimination under bourgeois society
and also allow them the freedom to go about their sexual affairs under a
socialist society.
However, as with the Marxist approach towards heterosexuality, this
defense should not go so far as to tolerate or encourage things like
paedophilia and other perversions.
Sex, violence and escapism in bourgeois society is exploited like a
commodity by pornographers, film producers, advertisers and so on to
make money and this should not be tolerated by Marxists whether in
bourgeois or socialist society.
Produces of such bourgeois commercial culture will argue that they are
"giving the people what they want" and unfortunately, the workers and
other people tend to go for it and it tends to lower the overall
cultural level among the masses.
Based upon the few Soviet films I have, even during the time of
Gorbachev, I could see that such films served to raise the overall
cultural level of the masses and likewise for the Chinese ballets during
the time of Mao Tse Tung.
Produces of bourgeois culture obviously regard the working class as
base and banal and feed them such culture, while the dictatorship of the
proletariat will strive to raise the overall material, cultural and
intellectual level of the proletariat and other classes under socialism
-- and why not. After all, as the ruling class, the proletariat has
every right to provide the very best for itself.
Yours fraternally
Charles
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:33:07 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: L-I: Re: Fw: Lenin on Sex: 2
FROM CLARA ZETKIN'S INTERVIEW OF LENIN: PART 2
(http://www.blythe.org/mlm/)
"In our country, too, considerable numbers of young people are busy
'revising bourgeois conceptions and morals' in the sex question. And
let me add that this involves a considerable section of our best boys
and girls, of our truly promising youth. It is as you have just said.
In the atmosphere created by the aftermath of war and by the
revolution which has begun, old ideological values, finding themselves
in a society whose economic foundations are undergoing a radical
My reply,
Sid. I read both Parts of your Zetkin interview but you failed to prove
your point. Again I would ask. Where does Lenin state his position
with respect to homosexuality? You appear to oppose the latter rather
strongly, but you are using quotes from Lenin that don't support your
position. I would fully concur with Lenin's views, but they are not
supporting your position. Then, again, they are not opposing it
either. That's the dilemma.
Klo
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:40:49 +0000
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1
Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
Organization: V.I. Lenin Internet Archive
> Hey Chatterbox!
>
> First, I find your attempts at provocation disingenuous and quite
> disgusting. I will not debate you; IMO, your opinions on the gay
> question are the same as the ultra-right and christian fundamentalists.
>
> You are scum.
>
> Martin
>
> P.S.: I am not Director of the Trotsky Archive; David Walters is. I am
> Director of the Lenin Archive. Get over yourself!
>
The Director waxes even more indignant, and after a deprecating
comment about my last name, hurls the accusation of 'ultra-right'
and 'christian fundamentalists' scum (corollary: in league with
the fascists). Similar to the knee-jerk vitriolic expletive of
"anti-semitism" used by Zionists and supporters of the Israeli state
to SILENCE all questions and criticisms.
And after I had clearly stated my own position as follows: "The
defense of people who are being truly persecuted by the capitalist
state or society for their sexual lifestyle has to be unconditional
in my opinion. However, that does not or should not imply that a
particular type of sexual lifestyle has to be actively promoted by
the socialists and communists."
So the question as to the behavior esposued by the Director is this:
Is this Marxism or the Devil's Dance? Is Marxism a science with all
questions open for discussion and analysis or is it not?
And what I did was present Lenin's own views on the
the sexual question. And that too on a list called
leninist-international. Perhaps Lenin was 'scum' too for writing what
he did in no unceratin terms.
The Director should pay close heed to these words of Lenin (that is,
if he truly claims the mantle of Leninism):
"It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for
the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones,
stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify
one's own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality
and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for
bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that
bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be
made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois.
Intellectuals and others like them are particularly keen on this.
There is no room for it in the Party, among the class-conscious,
fighting proletariat. "
Finally, as to his post-scripted comment " I am not Director of the Trotsky Archive;
David Walters is. I am Director of the Lenin Archive. Get over
yourself!", it is amusing to say the least. After all, many have been
the attempts made to smuggle in that bourgeois ideology which goes by
the name of Trotskyism under the cover of Leninism. That this is so
anyone can see for themselves at the Director's web site.
Sid
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:43:38 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: "leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu" <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Daniel Guerin (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaignin Germany)
Quinn McKinsey wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
> To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
> <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 8:34 PM
> Subject: Daniel Guerin (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election
> campaignin Germany)
>
> Daniel Guerin is well known for his work Fascism and Big Bisiness. He
> also published his reports on the early days of the Nazis in power,
> which are now available in a book form: The Brown Plague. Guerin later
> went on to play an important part in a homosexual liberation movement
> as well. In the 50s, he published Kinsey et la sexualite. He also made
> contributions to Arcadie, one of the early French journals of the
> homophile movement. During the 60s, he wrote for Gai pied--a gay
> liberation journal. And in the early 70s, Guerin took part in the
> front homosexuel d'action revolutionnaire. In his autobiography, he
> gives an account of the place his sexuality and desire for liberation
> occupied in his revolutionary commitment. Daniel Guerin, along with
> many others, was an important nodal point that linked sexual
> liberation movements to left-wing politics.
>
> Yoshie
Yoshie
With all due respect that is not the issue. No knowledgeable person
would deny that homosexuals have contributed a great deal to society.
Gore Vidal wrote some commendable literature and Charles Laughton made
some commendable movies. But the basic question remains. What is the
nature of homosexuality. I also return to my other original questions
which I will not repeat.
Klo
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 23:13:10 +0000
Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Fw: Lenin on Sex: 2
kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
>
> Sid. I read both Parts of your Zetkin interview but you failed to prove
> your point. Again I would ask. Where does Lenin state his position
> with respect to homosexuality? You appear to oppose the latter rather
> strongly, but you are using quotes from Lenin that don't support your
> position. I would fully concur with Lenin's views, but they are not
> supporting your position. Then, again, they are not opposing it
> either. That's the dilemma.
>
> Klo
You should try to think a little before you write, Klo. The
real question under discussion is human sexuality. Both hetero- and
homo-sexuality are component parts of human sexual behavior and the
question is how should Marxists understand and relate to this
subject. That was the point of quoting Lenin's own views on the
matter. My brief comments were directed at the sexuality question in
general and not to homosexuality in particular. So it is not clear
why you make the statement "You appear to oppose the latter
(homosexuality - SC) rather strongly".
I see that Yoshie has started posting material on Fascism and
Homophobia, which is quite besides the point and does not address the
heart of the issue. It is quite well known what the fascists did to
socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, in fact anyone
who fit into their concept of "unter-menschen". The Zionists and
supporters of Israel indulge in a similar kind of tactic. They focus
exlusively on the Jewish victims of Hitler's genocide and often do
not even mention any other victims (e.g. 25 million Soviet victims).
What is the point of such an exercise is not clear. Perhaps, it is
an attempt to paint us with the brush of homophobia. But what it does
is betray a theoretical weakness and evasion of the issue of the
sexual question.
Sid
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 17:14:56 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@mail.ilstu.edu>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:
> One question for Yoshie and the Director of the (Lenin) Trotsky
> Internet Archive. What is their opinion of the rights of those
> who practice incest?
Siddarth, this is utterly unprincipled, and though I have had very high
respect for you over the years I have read you on cyberspace, this is
very close to disqualifying you as a person worth arguing with. It
belongs to the same genres of discourse as the slimiest of red-baiting.
What is your opinion of the rights of those who overeat at breakfast?
What is your opinion of those who beat up gays? Have you stopped beating
up your mother? Have you stopped leaving stink bombs in apartment
building hallways? What is your opinion on human sacrifice among the
Aztecs? What is your opinion about the methods of statisticians under the
fourth French Republic? And so on?
Carrol
*********************************************
End of part 1 of 3
continued in part 2 of 3