Discussion on Leninist-International about Homosexuality 1998
----- part 2 of 3 -------
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 23:19:44 +0100
From: "Joćo 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:
> 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.
Joćo Paulo Monteiro
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 18:38:10 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
>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.
This is really batty. It is really such a simple question that I have no
idea why people don't get it. Puritanism is the culture that is unique to
the American capitalist system. Puritanism is opposed not only to
homosexuality, but sex between unmarried people. Sodomy is against the law
in many states, and includes anal sex between consenting heterosexual adults.
Puritanism is also responsible for the victimization of drug users. In the
1920s, when laws were first enacted against marijuana users, there was a
big attempt to depict it as a "nigger" drug.
Part of what took place in the 1960s was a general rebellion against
puritanism. This rebellion was much broader than the leftist movement. It
was healthy since it attacked this fundamentally regressive tendency in
American society to view things through the perspective of Cotton Mather.
A small section of the radical movement embraced the Russian and Chinese
revolution model as interpreted by Stalin and his followers. These comrades
had a healthy hatred for bourgeois society, but what they absorbed through
the general culture of this movement was the puritanism that had seeped
into Russian society during the Thermidor.
If you study the early days of the Soviet republic, you will discover
open-mindedness toward sexuality, art and life in general. People like
Mayakovsky were leaders of the artistic movement openly sponsored by the
state. Mayakovsky would have condemned all this talk about "normal" sexual
behavior.
Who knows what was on Lenin's mind when he made those remarks. Part of the
problem with both the Stalinist and Trotskyist sectarian model is that
there is an enormous tendency to quote these dead Russians without regard
for time or place. Myself, I would put a ban on quotation-mongering since
Adolfo Olaechea put his stamp on it.
If a revolutionary movement does not take a strong stand against
discriminatory laws and in favor of equal rights for gay people, then it is
an enemy of democracy. Socialists have to defend democratic rights. In the
epoch of imperialism, the bourgeoisie whittles them away while we are for
their expansion. If there was a massive revolutionary movement in the US,
it would have a gay fraction that would take the lead in defending gay
people from the violence that is breaking out in major cities. There has
been an epidemic of anti-gay violence in NYC lately.
This outbreak takes place at the same time as anti-Asian violence is on the
increase. Just the other day, a Bengali man was walking down the main
street in Queens when 4 racists beat him up. Giuliani encourages this sort
of racist violence, just as he encourages anti-gay violence. If the
revolutionary movement can not be a forceful defender of gay rights, then
it will compromise on defending people of color. Homophobia and racism go
hand in hand.
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
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: L-I: Re: Fw: GABS vs. DAB -- and the future DoP
Quinn McKinsey wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quinn McKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
> To: klomckin@infinet.com <klomckin@infinet.com>
> Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 9:46 PM
> Subject: Fw: GABS vs. DAB -- and the future DoP
>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ben Seattle <icd@communism.org>
> >To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
> ><leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
> >Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 5:29 PM
> >Subject: L-I: GABS vs. DAB -- and the future DoP
> >
> >
> >>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.
My reply,
I didn't realize I was in a debate, Ben. If you had paid closer
attention you would have noticed that I was merely asking a series of
questions. You would better spend your time if you would address the
questions I posed. Martin is the only one who has made a serious
attempt in that direction. Don't try to shove me into the anti-gay
crowd.
There is nothing wrong, on a list like this, with
> >>ignoring people who say stupid things.
My reply,
Would you kindly repost what I said that was "stupid."
In fact, such a policy is often
> >>the only practical course of action.
> >>
> >>Yoshie has responded to them with very intelligent ridicule.
My reply,
I prefer Martin's approach because he is trying to make a rational
argument based on data directed straight toward my queries.
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*.
My reply,
Again. Could you provide specifics or are we just to be left hanging on
your word alone.
> >>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.
My reply,
My posts have been noticeably absent in the noise category and I hope my
signal is getting through.
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).
My reply,
Now you are getting insulting and engaging in ad hominems. Maybe it's
time for Mark to step in before the ratio does increase.
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.
My reply,
You are only getting out what the providers allow to flow my friend.
Remember what I said about: He who runs the dough runs the show.
Providers are part of the means of PD and Ex and who do you think owns
them in capitalism and in socialism. Just as leaders can control what
flows in the former, they can control, and must control, what flows in
the latter.
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.
My reply,
If I am the provider, what do you think.
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.
My reply,
You don't just "jump on" the www my friend. There are some
intermediaries that have a voice in this matter; indeed, they have
control. They can shut you down whenever they feel like it. And please
don't give people the impression that the bourgeois media is going to
become more democratically controlled with an exiting of advertising
brought on by mass demand. Spare me, please.
(The
> >>exceptions to this, such as child pornography or neo-nazi or extreme
> >>racist propaganda--would be relatively insignificant.)
My reply,
Wrong on three counts. First, this kind of garbage is never
insignificant.
Second, why should this be censored but not religion. Are you saying
the latter is somehow innocuous? And third, why can't religious
propaganda be censored when racism and child pornography can be
according to you?
> >>
> >>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.
My reply,
Wrong again. Always trying to destroy the dictatorship of the
proletariat aren't you. It never ceases to amaze me the number of ways
pseudo- and anti-Marxists try to camouflage their attempts to undermine
socialism. Marxists are not free-speech advocates if that is what you
are wanting. So forget it. As long as vast differentials in wealth
exist throughout the world and there is no equality of access to the
means of PD and Ex., the bourgeoisie is not, I repeat, is not going to
be able to get its foot in the door under the guise of a mere
proletarian trying to get a voice in governmental affairs. The Party,
composed of the most advanced elements of the proletarian class, will
decide what goes through the media. Any other program is nothing more
than a prescription for disaster.
Klo
> >>
> >>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
*****************************************
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 18:47:35 -0400
I did not take a position on whether or not marxists should
fight for gay rights or not. (contrary to what some assumed.)
And that is for a simple reason, THERE IS NO MARXIST POSITION
to take on this subject. Sexual orientation is a personal choice, and
has no remifications on the dynamics of a "class" struggle. Gays,
like non-gays are members of some (economic) class, and as such,
some of them might be oppressed and some might be oppressors.
I think it is meaningless to ask whether or not marxists should fight
for gay rights. It becomes a valid question for marxists if, like sexsim
and racism, it becomes a TOOL in the hands of the imperialist to
economically EXCULDE ceratin sectors of the society from sharing
the wealth. Otherwise, ie in isolation, it is subject that someone might
have a personal opinion on, but not a marxist opinion on.
I think we should not loose sight of the main subject of this list:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggles." Marx & Engels.
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 23:54:23 +0000
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
You misunderstand very greatly. The question about "incest" was
asked in all seriousness since it is DIRECTLY related with the
subject of human sexuality. There was no ulterior motive and I had
asked this same question during a similar debate on the first Marxism
list some years ago but did not get any satisfactory reply. The real
question under discussion is human sexuality in all its complex
dimensions and not any particular variety (hetero or homo) as such.
And how should Marxists relate to this issue.
So your comment about "red-baiting" is not correct (after
all if you are a red, how can you be baited). It has a similar
connotation to the slogan of "anti-semitism" frequently used by
Zionists with alacrity to silence all dissent. Your other questions
are not germane here since they are not connected to the issue of
human sexuality.
Sid
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:00:35 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: Leninist-International List <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: The Gay Question [was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT]
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
--
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: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:01:54 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1
Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:
>
> 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.
Sid
Lenin wrote what he did in no uncertain terms but the terms are not
condemning homosexuality and they are not supporting your position.
Then again they don't oppose it either.
>
> 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.
But to what theories is he referring and does this include
homosexuality. You are assuming more than is stated.
This veiled respect for
> bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that
> bears on sex.
This comment would appear to oppose your position. Are you sure you
want to quote this. You appear to be upholding that bourgeois morality
that he finds repugnant.
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. "
This would appear to be counter to your position as well. Are you sure
Lenin is your man.
Klo
>
> 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: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:06:59 +0100
From: "Joćo Paulo Monteiro" <jpmonteiro@mail.telepac.pt>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1
> "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.
Eh, eh, eh. Wilhelm Reich, the old nuts, wouldn't have liked to ear this.
Nor the young students of May 68: "Le plus je fais l'amour, le plus j'aime
la révolution".
I think this piece of Lenin is interesting, but largely anecdotal. It
mostly testifies to Lenin's stubborn and relentless focus on revolutionary
agitation at a particularly decisive time and circonstance.
Unfortunately, we don't live in revolutionary times and I don't think we
are wasting our times talking about sex. Of course, for a particularly
important leader and theoretician like Lenin, it would always be a harmful
distraction of his time and energies to engage continually in debates on
sexual matters (or in actual practice, over which there are conflicting
accounts of Lenin's record). But on the movement as a whole, there is
place for these discussions and I think they are important indeed.
Joćo Paulo Monteiro
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:08:30 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1
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).
>
> 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)
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:23:00 +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:
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> Although I agree with the sentiment made by David Welch on this
> question, I will offer a couple of thoughts.
>
> On an anthropological level, two things stand out in my memory:
>
> First, there is evidence that primates engage in what humans refer to as
> bisexuality. Male gorillas and ourangutans (sp?) have been documented
> in same-sex acts. Sometimes, this happens even though there are a
> plethora of female primates around.
Could you provide some documentation of that. I would also be
interested in knowing how common it is and if there were any extenuating
circumstances.
>
> Second, it is commonly known that amphibians not only engage in same-sex
> activity, but can change genders. This development of not only
> bisexuality but transgender metamorphosis has wide-ranging lessons for
> human biological -- not to mention sociological -- thought.
>
> In short, same-sex practices exist all along the evolutionary line.
I have serious qualms about disagreeing with you but don't you think
this is a rather weak reed to lean on and does this really prove it
exists "all along the evolutionary line." Is it done by dogs, cats,
horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, racoons, birds, hogs, sheep, or llamas?
What primates engage in homosexuality on a regular and broad-based
basis? These question are critical because, among other things, they
take the issue out of the cultural conditioning context. It has to be
determined one way or the other: Is this natural or not because upon
that decision rests all the other decisions. Once that is determined
all else falls in place.
If homosexuality is an illness, a perversion, or a sickness, then
it needs to be treated and certainly not propagated or promoted or
allowed to operate unhindered. On the other hand, if it is natural and
is based on genetics primarily, if it is not a matter of choice but of
physiological makeup, then it not only deserves to be protected,
fostered, legalized and allowed to operate freely, but stiff penalties
should be applied to those who operate in any illegal manner to the
contrary. The problem is that so much of the information is so
tendentious. What is the truth. That's all I care about.
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 19:34:18 -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:
>
> I did not take a position on whether or not marxists should
> fight for gay rights or not. (contrary to what some assumed.)
>
If this is really the case, then I retract my saying you did.
> And that is for a simple reason, THERE IS NO MARXIST POSITION
> to take on this subject. Sexual orientation is a personal choice, and
> has no remifications on the dynamics of a "class" struggle.
I doubly disagree with this statement. First, there is a Marxist
position, namely that Marxists defend the rights of gays and lesbians to
be gays and lesbians -- and not drive them back into the closet.
Second, it does have ramifications for the class struggle -- as I will
point out below.
> Gays,
> like non-gays are members of some (economic) class, and as such,
> some of them might be oppressed and some might be oppressors.
> I think it is meaningless to ask whether or not marxists should fight
> for gay rights. It becomes a valid question for marxists if, like
> sexsim and racism, it becomes a TOOL in the hands of the imperialist
> to economically EXCULDE ceratin sectors of the society from sharing
> the wealth. Otherwise, ie in isolation, it is subject that someone
> might have a personal opinion on, but not a marxist opinion on.
>
Heterosexism and homophobia (two different things, mind you) are tools
in the hands of the bourgeoisie. I would like to be a teacher, but in
many states, I cannot because I'm gay. In these states, I can be denied
housing, education, goods and services. Gays have no formal rights
under the bourgeois state -- that is, we do not have "equal protection
under the law".
As it is, the bourgeoisie uses the ideology of "family values" in the
U.S. to attack gays and relegate them to second-class-citizen status.
If a more reactionary government was to take power (e.g., Pat Buchanan),
gays could very well be denied all rights.
In short, gays and lesbians in the U.S. do suffer a superoppression,
like Blacks and women. And it is the responsibility of Marxists to
rally gay and lesbian workers to their banner and develop them as
political leaders and theoreticians.
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, 3 Oct 1998 19:04:36 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Magnus Hirschfeld (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election
campaign in Germany)
Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was one of the earliest homosexual
researcher-activists for the organized homophile movement. Fascists and
other right-wingers, even before the Third Reich, attacked him constantly.
Several times, he was physically assaulted by reactionaries; at one time,
he suffered a fracture of the skull. In an autobiographical sketch,
Hirschfeld, with dry irony, speaks of his experience: "As the press carried
a notice that the attack had proven fatal, Hirschfeld had an opportunity of
reading his own obituary" (Magnus Hirschfeld, "Autobiographical Sketch,"
Encyclopaedia Sexualis, ed. Victor Robinson [NY, 1936], pp.317-21).
According to Hirschfeld's friend Max Hodann:
The Nazis persecuted Hirschfeld, not only on account of his "non-Aryan"
extraction, but also because of his open acknowledgment of pacifistic and
socialistic tendencies, and his work in sexual science. (Max Hodann,
History of Modern Morals [London, 1937): 322 f.)
As the fascists gained in strength, they "terrorized his [Hirschfeld's]
meetings and closed lecture halls, so that for the safety of his audiences
and himself, Hirschfeld was no longer able to make a public appearance"
(Hirschfeld, "Autobiographical Sketch").
Eventually, Hirschfeld's Institute of Sexual Science was destroyed by the
Nazis on May 6, 1933. According to Ludwig L. Lenz (a fellow researcher at
the Institute), this was "one of the earliest acts of governmental terror"
by the Nazis. There is a well-known film-footage of Nazi book-burning; in
fact, the books being burned in that oft-seen footage came from
Hirschfeld's Institute.
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 19:40:36 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: L-I: Sergei Eisenstein, Pier Paolo Pasolini, & Reiner Werner
Fassbinder (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany)
Who made the most illustrious contribution to left-wing film culture? There
might be some disputes as to merits of various candidates; however, there
is no doubt that Sergei Eisenstein will be on every self-respecting Marxist
film buff's list. And you know what? Sergein Eisenstein was homosexual.
Alas, according to Simon Karlinsky's "Russia's Gay Literature and Culture:
The Impact of the October Revolution" (Hidden from History: Reclaiming the
Gay & Lesbian Past. Eds. Martin Duberman, Martha Vicinus, & George
Chauncey, Jr. NY: Meridian, 1989.), the Soviet authorities tried to keep
him (among many others, famous or unknown) "in a lifelong closet."
Before he [Eisenstein] was allowed to make another film [after his sojourns
in Berlin, Paris, and Mexico where he became openly gay, which upset the
government], he had to submit to that Soviet cure-all for homosexuality:
marriage. His friend and assistant Pera Attasheva volunteered to go through
the ceremony, though they never lived together. (361)
Homophobia and heterosexism not only harm the lives of gay men and
lesbians. They also affect the lives of individuals who, either out of
sympathy or unbeknownst to themselves, get enlisted in the enforcement of
the Closet that preserve the official lies.
Now, back to the left-wing film-makers. On my list, next to Eisenstein,
there will be Pier Paolo Pasolini and Reiner Werner Fassbinder. Both were
gay, as you know.
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 01:48:32 +0000
From: David Welch <welch@mcmail.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: The Gay Question [was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT]
I read somewhere about scientists who were studying lesbian seagulls.
But perhaps an easier question is, are there any other animals that
participate in email lists. No? Then comrade, I suggest you stop this
perversion at once. Personally I intend to enjoy being human.
On Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 08:24:40PM +0000, kloDMcKinsey wrote:
> 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?
>
--
David Welch (welch@mcmail.com)
For a Soviet Britain!
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 20:17:57 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Daniel Guerin (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign
in 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
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:04:34 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Fascism, Homophobia, and Sexism (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT)
>From Erwin J. Haeberle's "Swastica, Pink Triangle, and Yellow Star: The
Destruction of Sexology and the Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany"
(Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay & Lesbian Past. Eds. Martin
Duberman, Martha Vicinus, & George Chauncey, Jr. NY: Meridian, 1989):
When, during an early election campaign, a homosexual rights organization
requested a formal statement on homosexuality from all political parties,
Hitler's National Socialist Party gave the following official response:
Suprema lex salus populi!
Communal welfare before personal welfare!
Those who are considering love between men or between women are our
enemies. Anything that emasculates our people and that makes us fair game
for our enemies we reject, because we know that life is a struggle and that
it is insanity to believe that all human beings will one day embrace each
other as brothers. Natural history teaches us a different lesson. Might
makes right. And the stronger will always prevail against the weaker. Today
we are the weaker. Let us make sure that we will become the stronger again!
This we can do only if we exercise moral restraint. Therefore we reject all
immorality, especially love between men, because it deprives us of our last
chance to free our people from the chains of slavery which are keeping it
fettered today.
...As the text shows, there could be no doubt about the Nazi position on
homosexuality, even before 1933. Its association with weakness, the claim
that it "emasculates" the people, and its equation with immorality show
quite clearly that the Nazis catered to the sexual fears of the
uninformed.... In fact, the very first year of Hitler's rule saw the
establishment of the first concentration camps and the imprisonment of the
first homosexuals in them. ...they [homosexuals] represented the "sexual
degenerates" (later to be joined by the "race defilers") who remained a
part of the inmate population as long as the camps existed.
...they [homosexuals] might be simply arrested and brought in [to the
concentration camps] by the Gestapo, especially if they were also
politically suspect, or they might be sent in after having been convicted
of homosexual conduct in an ordinary court. Eventually, the government even
created a special office, the "Reichs-Center for the Fight against
Homosexuality and Abortion" in the headquarter of the criminal police....
(emphasis mine) (pp. 374-375)
Biological determinism and naturalization of ideology ("Natural history
teaches us a different lesson"); fear of the perceived decline in male
dominance (the rhetoric of "emasculation"); fear of sexual liberation ("we
reject all immorality, especially love between men"); repression of women +
sexual dissidents through the confinement of sexuality to reproduction
("the fight against homosexuality and abortion"). Such are ingredients for
National-Socialist politics--politics of fear (fear of the Others as well
as of themselves). Marxists are duty-bound to fight any resurgence of such
ideas and of practice based on them.
Yoshie
*****************************************
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:48:40 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Sergei Eisenstein, Pier Paolo Pasolini, & Reiner Werner Fassbinder
(was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany)
I actually knew this about Eisenstein. Even though he was closeted
during the early years of the Soviet state, many of the Bolshevik
leaders knew of his sexuality -- including Lenin. Regardless,
Eisenstein was a star of early Soviet film -- he was not persecuted for
his sexuality in Lenin's RSFSR.
Many of the early Soviet artists, creators of some of the most powerful
posters of the Civil War and War Communism, and pioneers of
constructivist art during the NEP, were also gay.
And, comrades, many of these artists were members of the Bolshevik
Party. I think a couple of them even sat on the Central Committee at
some point (I don't remember for sure).
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> Before he [Eisenstein] was allowed to make another film [after his
> sojourns in Berlin, Paris, and Mexico where he became openly gay,
> which upset the government], he had to submit to that Soviet cure-all
> for homosexuality: marriage. His friend and assistant Pera Attasheva
> volunteered to go through the ceremony, though they never lived
> together. (361)
>
You might want to point out when this happened.
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 22:59:43 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: The Gay Question [was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT]
kloDMcKinsey wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Although I agree with the sentiment made by David Welch on this
question, I will offer a couple of thoughts.
On an anthropological level, two things stand out in my memory:
First, there is evidence that primates engage in what humans refer to as
bisexuality. Male gorillas and ourangutans (sp?) have been documented
in same-sex acts. Sometimes, this happens even though there are a
plethora of female primates around.
Second, it is commonly known that amphibians not only engage in same-sex
activity, but can change genders. This development of not only
bisexuality but transgender metamorphosis has wide-ranging lessons for
human biological -- not to mention sociological -- thought.
In short, same-sex practices exist all along the evolutionary line.
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, 3 Oct 1998 22:24:57 -0500
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: Medicalization of Sexual Non-Conformists (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT)
Before the rise of industrial capitalism, it was mainly religious
authorities--especially Christianity in the West--that prohibited various
sexual practices that do not lead toward reproduction (same-sex love,
onanism, etc.). Back then, it had yet to occur to the ideologues to condemn
what they thought of as inimical to the social order they upheld on the
basis of medicine.
Medicalization of sexual non-conformists (homosexuals, masturbators,
fetishists, etc.) became the main tool of sexual discipline only after
science came to not so much replace as suppplement religion as the
ideological apparatus of choice for the ruling class.
Another change that came with industrial capitalism is that it became
relatively accepted that men and women could be "normal" productive members
of communities without producing off-springs. Sex-reformers/'medical'
professionals such as Freud helped to make this ideological transition;
more conscious control of reproduction (through contraceptives, male
withdrawal, abortion, etc.), observable in the major decline in the birth
rate during the 19th and 20th centuries, also made this change possible.
Now the sexual ethics changed from a reproduction-centered one to a
morality that emphasizes the "politically correct" sexual object choice (an
adult of the sex different from yours). With this change, the nature of
sexual policing also became different. Before, specific acts were
prohibited, and those specific acts (such as sodomy) were regarded as
"temptations" for everyone. Now, specific categories of "perverts" were
created in ideology, thus also producing the category of "normals." The
change is from the focus on conduct to that on biologized + medicalized
"differences."
The above change, however, does not mean that the older
reproduction-centered morality has totally disappeared. One look at the
anti-abortion politics should make us realize its residual power. The
desire to confine sexuality to reproduction seems still strong, even on
this list. Nonetheless, history has been on the side of sexual
liberationists. In practice if not in ideology yet, more and more people
have come to think of sex and sexuality as a matter of pleasure and
recreation primarily, and as a tool for reproduction only when children are
truly desired. This practical change facilitated the struggles of not only
women but also sexual non-conformists for freedom, since on the basis of
quality of love and pleasure, there is no reason to distinguish same-sex
love from different-sex love.
Yoshie
*****************************************
From: bautiste@uswest.net
Date sent: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:13:38 -0600
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate
Send reply to: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Charles F. Moreira wrote:
> 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.
You flatter me. Anti-communist? Hmmm... I don't think so. Anti-militia maybe.
Did you look at the essays on poverty and working conditions in New Mexico?
Did you look at the piece on Nike or the one on coporate clowns? I don't know
how you got from those pieces to anti-com, but then I have recently heard that
Marx was not a marxist, so maybe I'm not a communist. Just a THOUGHT. Anyway,
what does it mean to be a communist nowadays?
> Furthermore, this person who posted this does not give his name, which
> is suspiscious.
Chuck Miller, which I think I posted at the end of my last email. Or if I forgot,
I apologize. Nothing to hide, just a bad memory.
> There are many links to articles in Atlantic Monthly and Boston Review.
> Perhaps our American comrades can tell us what these magazines are.
Links to American Monthly and Boston Review?? Are you sure? I will have to double-check.
What about the links to Malcolm X's site and the Martin L. King site. I also site heavily Doug
Henwood's site.Thanks Charles, fraternally, chuck miller
--
http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm
*****************************************
From: bautiste@uswest.net
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:19:47 -0600
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Medicalization of Sexual Non-Conformists (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT)
There's actually quite some evidence that homsexuality was practised and
approved in some way during the middle ages. A gay historian has documented
this, although i have not read the work. It is important to note where Dante
puts several very famous gay poets and artists--not in Hell, as one would
expect, but in the closest circle to the empyrean. As dante saw it, gay love
was a form of love and the life that one led in expressing love reflected in
some way the love of the divine...
Just some thoughts.
chuck miller
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Before the rise of industrial capitalism, it was mainly religious
> authorities--especially Christianity in the West--that prohibited various
> sexual practices that do not lead toward reproduction (same-sex love,
> onanism, etc.). Back then, it had yet to occur to the ideologues to condemn
> what they thought of as inimical to the social order they upheld on the
> basis of medicine.
>
> Medicalization of sexual non-conformists (homosexuals, masturbators,
> fetishists, etc.) became the main tool of sexual discipline only after
> science came to not so much replace as suppplement religion as the
> ideological apparatus of choice for the ruling class.
>
> Another change that came with industrial capitalism is that it became
> relatively accepted that men and women could be "normal" productive members
> of communities without producing off-springs. Sex-reformers/'medical'
> professionals such as Freud helped to make this ideological transition;
> more conscious control of reproduction (through contraceptives, male
> withdrawal, abortion, etc.), observable in the major decline in the birth
> rate during the 19th and 20th centuries, also made this change possible.
> Now the sexual ethics changed from a reproduction-centered one to a
> morality that emphasizes the "politically correct" sexual object choice (an
> adult of the sex different from yours). With this change, the nature of
> sexual policing also became different. Before, specific acts were
> prohibited, and those specific acts (such as sodomy) were regarded as
> "temptations" for everyone. Now, specific categories of "perverts" were
> created in ideology, thus also producing the category of "normals." The
> change is from the focus on conduct to that on biologized + medicalized
> "differences."
>
> The above change, however, does not mean that the older
> reproduction-centered morality has totally disappeared. One look at the
> anti-abortion politics should make us realize its residual power. The
> desire to confine sexuality to reproduction seems still strong, even on
> this list. Nonetheless, history has been on the side of sexual
> liberationists. In practice if not in ideology yet, more and more people
> have come to think of sex and sexuality as a matter of pleasure and
> recreation primarily, and as a tool for reproduction only when children are
> truly desired. This practical change facilitated the struggles of not only
> women but also sexual non-conformists for freedom, since on the basis of
> quality of love and pleasure, there is no reason to distinguish same-sex
> love from different-sex love.
>
> Yoshie
>
>
--
http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm
*****************************************
From: Krixel@aol.com
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 06:25:34 EDT
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: Reply to Martin Schreader
(Immediately after "Results From the Election Campaign" by Group Neue Einheit
was mailed to this list, M. Schreader on Sept., 28, 1998 attacked the whole
piece. I'm forwarding a reply by the group to this early attack of his.)
Reply to M. Schreader
(Oct., 2, 1998)
At first it has to be said about Schreader's accusations, that the statement
by Gruppe Neue Einheit about the election campaign of the parties is not a
program or a programmatic document but a public attack vis a vis this
extortionist election, dealing especially with this subject. The accusations
that several social questions are not touched upon in it are out of place.
Now about the most conspicuous in his attacks. He raises his accusations first
of all in the context of the SPD's and the Greens' action concerning the so-
called emancipation of homosexuality. So we shall refute this first.
The author straightfaced asserts that "German Marxism has always had a proud
history of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois state." When
and where is this supposed to have happened? There is no statement in favor of
the homosexuals during the First International and the time of Social
Democracy until 1914. This is bare invention. And neither later there was
anything of this kind, neither with the KPD. This subject is entirely new.
Only since the beginning of the seventies some allegedly Marxist organisations
picked this up. As for Marx, he made fun of some people demanding that the
labor movement should give its support for homosexuals. For that he was even
attacked by so-called representatives of homosexuals. Engels expressed his
disgust regarding homosexuality.
We only can once more request the author to prove his assertions. There will
not be left much of them.
Further, about the assertions about the Bolsheviks.
Known to us is only that the Soviet government annuled the whole section on
sexual criminal law in tsarist criminal law, which concerned several
questions. But there is not a single statement by Lenin about homosexuality,
not even a single remark. With regard to Lenin, it is an invention that Lenin
ever gave his support for such a cause. If Schreader is a director of a Lenin-
internet-archive, he should just give some proofs for his views. The Soviet
Union in the further development certainly had its reasons when it excluded
such phenomena of decadence from social life.
Furthermore, where is it here about criminal law? With the SPD; the Greens and
also the mass media it is about the so-called equal rights, even about so-
called "marriages" of homosexuals, and even about the right to adopt children.
Where, at any time, something like that was demanded or only thought in the
former Soviet Union, in China or in a revolutionary state, where in the former
history of mankind! It is nothing but perfidy to insinuate something like that
to revolutionary states. And equally it is nothing but perfidy if today's
society which is ruled by the great finance and capital oligarchies wants
something like that to become law. There is nothing like that in the
revolutionary labor movement.
"Equal rights for oppressed people, in this case homosexuals" - what kind of a
slogan is this supposed to be? It is a persiflage of Marxism, a very bad one.
It is possible to be oppressed for very different and contradictory reasons in
capitalist society. There are revolutionaries who are oppressed, a broad
spectrum of progressive people who however must unite in struggle. There are
also reactionaries who are oppressed, there are religious sects which are
oppressed, there are sometimes fascists who are oppressed, and there are
varied criminals who are treated repressively in this or that way, or are
downright repressed.
Also the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes oppresses: the forces of
bourgeois and feudal decay, among them also their cultural representatives.
Is it possible for revolutionaries to put all these "oppressed" on a par and
demand "equal rights for oppressed people"? You have understood absolutely
nothing of Marxism and Leninism. The "liberation of all oppressed" is
anarchism at its worst, a back door of reaction.
And Schreader dares to remind us of ultra-rightists? Doesn't he know that,
e.g., Hitler essentially leaned also on homosexual circles in his rise? That
many circles in the USA which belong to the ultra-rightists are homosexuals,
too, former FBI-Chief Hoover included, for example? Schreader makes white out
of black, and black out of white. Once more we firmly request him to give at
least one proof that speaking up for or furthering the homosexuals has
occurred in the labor movement in the past.
We attacked the elections and the so-called electoral campaign because they
mean an extortion against the population. The term "population" here means the
overwhelming majority of all who do not belong to the top of this political
system. This statement "Results from the Election Campaign" attempts to mark
the extortion in it and to attack the stealthily manoeuvres which are underway
without the population. What has Schreader to object against such a statement?
If the green measures are taken as planned, above all German as well as
foreign workers will be hit. They are directed against almost all working
people, but very especially the poorest strata will be pressed down further.
So what about his remark that we didn't mention the emigrants? Today the
emigrants in Germany are to be found in the whole social spectrum, as workers,
labor aristocrats, petty bourgeois; they are to be found among the low-sunk,
the dirty dealers, the traffickers and also long since among the bourgeoisie.
The times when "foreigner" could largely be equated to "lower worker on the
assembly line" have gone for more than twenty years. The deep split within the
working class is above all between the long-settled, the "gestandene" workers,
and those who have come new, from Eastern Europe, for example, but also from
many other countries and even from certain strata of the German working people
who partly work for the lowest wages. Also these will be strongly hit by
rising energy prices.
Finally some remarks about the general characterization of our statement. One
has to consider that today we have a very weak domestic working class, which
is virtually without representation of its interests and even sometimes
without a political will of its own. The restructurings and the transfers of
production have had consequences. The position of the working class and also
of all other classes is moulded much more by the international interrelation
than before. We cannot direct abstract appeals to the working class which go
unheard into the void. The frauds of the system meet the resistance of very
broad sections of the population, this is not specific to the working class.
If we attack these frauds we help the international revolution. It is typical
for certain Trotskyites to attack exactly such concrete steps.
We only can request the author to show us where our view contradicts the
material situation in the country and on the international level. And the
agreement with reality is after all the decisive criterion.
Finally it is completely insufficient to portray the Greens only as a
bourgeois party. They in fact mark that side of the bourgeoisie which wants to
keep labor on the lowest level and even drag it back. The revolutionary
development of the productive forces in fact threatens the borgeoisie's rule
itself. What else do the Greens express than the extremist position to stop
this development? The bourgeois rule has an ambivalent relation to technology,
for it is not able to exist without growth. This is not new. It can be found
in Marx already, but today we find it to go much further. The fanatism of the
bourgeoisie and the other out-dated classes leads to the negation of
civilization, to a fundamentally pessimistic position, and finally to
disparaging man in general.
Group Neue Einheit
Oct., 2, 1998
*****************************************
From: Krixel@aol.com
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 06:25:36 EDT
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement
A short fundamental statement
(The following statement containing some historical points about homosexuality
was written by Hartmut Dicke on Sept., 29, 1998 as an answer to a request in a
German language newsgroup which asked for explanation why we, the Group Neue
Einheit, view the laws planned by the SPD and the Greens for the so-called
"emancipation of homosexuals" as an "utterly deep cut into the moral and
cultural life" [See translator's note at the end].
I'm forwarding this to L-I as a further, more fundamental contribution to the
current debate.)
An astonishing request since it is evident what is meant. But one can as well
outline it by some historical points.
In the whole development of mankind the development of sexuality (of course
between man and woman) itself forms a fundamental element of the human
culture, reversely sexuality also is a reflection of the social conditions.
"Equal rights" as intended here by the parties mentioned [the SPD and the
Greens, translator's note] IMO have never existed. In this context it is
sometimes referred to earlier instances or primitive societies.
Homosexuality is only tolerated, in a few exceptional cases, as an
extraordinary form; in early history it occurs, so to say, as an experimental
and a religious-ritualistic form. Later, however, it occurs as a concomitant
form of classes which are extremely parasitic, exploitative and characterized
by misanthropy (examples: the old Spartan aristocracy, the antique Roman
imperial mob in the phase of decline).
Since appr. 2500 - 3000 years it is proscribed, and not by chance. The humans
understood that it cannot be tolerated, that it contradicts the aesthetics and
dignity of the human being. Therefore severe codes serving its prohibition.
The question of how to deal with sexuality plays an important role in all
ethical questions, formerly also in the emergence of the religions which
simultaneously comprised also these ethical questions. It is not very daring
to put forward even the thesis that the experience and the rejection of
homosexuality is even one of the essential points of the (relatively) modern
monotheistic religions. In Judaism, in any case, this rejection plays an
important role. There is also a fundamental realization involved, that the
concentration upon real sexuality, that is to say between man and woman, makes
the human being strong.
If now by certain social parties and organisations the "emancipation" of
homosexuality (not at all only its toleration) is pushed forward, can it be in
question that this is a deep cut into the country's ethical life? And such
attacks as launched now in the form of the so-called "equal rights" by the
parties mentioned are not yet known to me at all in history. Such an
intervention (as the "adoption right ") has not ocurred even in the examples
of human development which lie far in the past. Thus it even is a cut as it
has not been found yet in the whole history of mankind. The wording in the
statement by Group Neue Einheit thus is in fact correct.
Such a social attack, in my opinion, goes even much stronger against the
cohesion of society than some economic policies aiming at de-solidarisation.
This attack is not directed against the dictatorship of money and its brutal
effects which from day to day we can realize more clearly, but it runs exactly
parallel to it. Because of that it is anything but "emancipative".
Hartmut Dicke
c 1998, H.D.
(Translator's note: there is a problem with the term "moral" in English. It
does not adequately translate the word "sittlich" used in the original German
text. "Sittlich" is of a broader meaning, comprising, e.g., also cultural
values and habits. So the expression "sittliches Leben" is now translated
"moral and cultural life".)
*****************************************
From: "Brett Murphy" <brettm@alphalink.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: Re: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 00:17:58 -0700
An interesting article I must say,I hope that was not too brief a comment. I
will be honest,say that I have not had time to read it properly.No offense.
Brett
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 09:08:19 +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
Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
Mark
Carrol Cox wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:19:54 +0100
From: "Joćo 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:
>
>
> 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.
Of course, this percentage thing just can't be done. Every individual is
a distinct
case. I would say some individuals are very strongly inclined towards
homosexuality
by natural causes, others have a somewhat more open display of sexual
options at
their disposal.
I think your driving this debate to a somewhat caricatural terrain. The
real heart
of the matter (from your standpoint) should be this: can homosexuality
be
extricated by education and social environment.
I think it is very clear that it can't. It isn't possible, let alone
desirable. Socialist Cuba has a very unfortunate record on this respect.
There will always be gays, Klo. Get use to it. I, for one, think my own
sexuality is enriched by the fact that gays exist.
What we should fight is not homosexuality but homophobia. Many
heterosexual men and women (for understandable reasons) feel some
revulsion at the idea of homosexuality, which unfortunately is sometimes
translated into homophobic and discriminatory attitudes.
What we should fight is fear. This is the revolutionary and
anti-bourgeois attitude towards sexuality.
Joćo Paulo Monteiro
*****************************************
From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" <siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:28:17 +0000
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
First, please allow me to clear some misunderstandings which have
developed on this subject. All attacks (violent or 'legal') on
people by the capitalist state or society who voluntarily (without
coercion) participate in a particular sexual lifestyle have to be
combatted. This defence has to be unconditional. However, the wider
issue here is human sexuality and not homosexuality per se. And how
do Marxists deal with this issue.
Lenin
> >"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.
Louis Proyect
> This is really batty. It is really such a simple question that I have no
> idea why people don't get it. Puritanism is the culture that is unique to
> the American capitalist system. Puritanism is opposed not only to
> homosexuality, but sex between unmarried people. Sodomy is against the law
> in many states, and includes anal sex between consenting heterosexual adults.
>
Louis makes a fundamental error here. He refers to Lenin as a batty
Puritan. He forgets that sex like anything is full of contradictions
and the aspects of these contradictions change over time. At a
particular place at a particular moment of time, one or other aspect
has to be emphasized by the revolutionary movement. Lenin made these
remarks to Clara Zetkin during the civil war years - a period of
revolution and counter-revolution when immense vigilance was
necessary. This is clear in the following words:
"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."
...."JUST NOW (emphasis - SC) 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."
In contrast to Lenin, Louis seems to make the issue of what he calls
Puritanism into an absolute ideology which has to be relentlessly
fought at all times in all places. Well, what about other
'Puritan' values which all of us have imbibed from our childhood days
onwards. Values like "speak the truth", "share your things with
others", "be moderate in your habits", "do not smoke" and so on. Have
all of these things to be thrown out too? The ruling class preaches
all these things but practice their very opposite. That is why their
moral outpourings are hypocritical as Lenin remarked.
Then in the matter of sex, there is the contradiction between
repressivness and hedonism. I have personally seen both of these
opposing aspects. In the great metropoles of the sexually liberal
West, there seems to be kind of sexual tension (like racial tension)
which is not there in the sexually repressed East.And there too, in
the most advanced capitalist sectors, this tension is more palapable
than in the less developed ones. There, women are both repressed and
respected at the same time, especially older women. And in the
sexually liberal West, the incident of rapes of women are also much
higher. Inspite of 'sexual liberation', women have become a
sexual commodity as can been seen in advertisements, glossy magazines
and supermarket tabloids. Also it appears that sexual 'liberation'
has resulted in a free-for-all fugitive kind of sex with no holds
barred, no committment, and where everyone (child to old age) is a
potential sex object. Is this achievement of freedom or becoming a
slave to (also subjecting others to) one's hedonistic
individualistic pleasures? Are these the glimpses of the communist
vision of free love or something else? This is what Lenin remarked on
to Clara Zetkin.
Both of the aspects, hedonism and repressiveness contain dangers.
Which one to emphasize depends on time, place and historical setting.
What Louis calls 'Puritanism' actually prevails over much of the
world today and is practiced by the majority of humanity.
One other thing. If one is an opportunist, his/her opportunism will
reveal itself in different facets of behavior, including sexual
behavior.
<snip>
Louis
> Who knows what was on Lenin's mind when he made those remarks. Part of the
> problem with both the Stalinist and Trotskyist sectarian model is that
> there is an enormous tendency to quote these dead Russians without regard
> for time or place. Myself, I would put a ban on quotation-mongering since
> Adolfo Olaechea put his stamp on it.
>
It is clear what was on Lenin's mind - it was the fate of the
Russian revolution and the world revolution during the period of
intense counter-revolution, and how to make the revolution go
forward (so 'time or place' is clear here). That Louis is now
referring to 'Stalinist and Trotskyist sectarian' model' (while he is
apparently suspended above both of them in free space), which has
some truth in general, is irrelevant to the context here. This list
is called "Leninist-International" and it is of great importance to
know what Lenin himself thought of these matters. Since our
angry Director or Yoshie did not provide this, someone had to do it.
It is also interesting that Louis, who frequently presents entire
articles by the recent MR crowd and others like David Harvey, John
Bellamy Foster, Alan Wald, Ellen Wood - modern academic 'Marxists',
etc in his own list, should raise issue here with what he calls
"quotation mongering" from the works of the founders of Marxism. His
dismissive use of the words "dead Russians" is superficial,
chauvinistic, contemptuous, and which the Yeltsin gang, and the
people who run the IMF, WTO, WB would surely love to hear. After all,
they have being trying to get rid of Lenin and banish his memory all
these decades. Louis's heroes are of course to be found among the
living only - people like Daniel Ortega, Tomas Borges, Joaquin
Villalobos (who may have played a part in the murder of the
Salvodorean communist poet, Roque Dalton), the eloquent
Subcommandante from Chiapas, Marcos, etc. As is well known by now,
the former three have become outright turncoats.
So in contrast to Louis's cynical 'realism', here is the
African-American poet Langston Hughes writing in 1946:
LENIN
Lenin walks around the world.
Frontiers cannot bar him.
Neither barracks nor barricades impede.
Nor does barbed wire scar him.
Lenin walks around the world.
Black, brown, and white receive him.
Language is no barrier.
The strangest tongues believe him.
Lenin walks around the world.
The sun sets like a scar.
Between the darkness and the dawn
There rises a red star.
The remainder of Louis's post does not need commenting since I agree
with its essence.
Sid
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 08:38:05 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: L-I: Bonobos
Bonobo, The Forgotten Ape: Franz De Waal & Frans Lanting, University of
California Press, 1997, ISBN 0-520-20535-9
Bonobo chimpanzees are fashionable these days. It is a mark of their cachet
that a coffee table book has been dedicated to them. This book is
definitely a coffee table book. It is outsized, has well written text in a
popular style, and a large number of stunning photos.
There is one problem with it as a coffee table book. If you have small
children and you leave it about you had best be comfortable about answering
explicit questions about the birds and the bees or in this case, about the
sex life of the chimpanzee. We are talking serious chimp smut here.
Consider it as an alternative to _Our Bodies, Ourselves for Six Year Olds_.
It wasn't until fairly recently that it was even realized that there was
more than one species of chimpanzee. It has only been in the last couple of
decades that serious studies of chimpanzee social behaviour have been
undertaken. These studies have been illuminating and disconcerting.
There had a belief, expressed in tones both of sorrow and pride, that
humans were uniquely damned as killer apes, unique in their savagery and
their predilection for warfare. (Ants can be conveniently explained away as
being insects and therefore not counting.) Alas for the pride of the damned
- the common chimpanzee shares the ignoble traits of his (and here "his" is
the appropriate pronoun) human cousins. Our cousins are tool users who
engage in internecine warfare from time to time, machiavellian politics,
and various other unlovely forms of behaviour that we thought were the
exclusive preserve of homo sapiens.
The doyens of pop exposition of the biological origins of human nature beat
their drums. True, we are not unique, but we are killer apes. It runs in
the family, so to speak. Patriarchy, warfare, greed, politics, they are all
in our genes. Alas for determinism. Our other cousin is a firm practitioner
of the "make love, not war" approach to life. It was the fashion among pop
expositors to count us as a uniquely sexy species. It turns out that we are
quite staid and sedate in our ways.
Heterosexual sex, female homosexuality, male homosexuality, oral-genital
sex, mutual masturbation, even deep-tongue kissing, they do it all -
frequently. With enthusiasm. It's part of their social repertoire. Are
things getting tense? Make love and relax. Even more disturbing for those
who would ground "the way things are" in biological determinism, our
kissing cousins (and kiss they do) have a female dominant social structure.
Horrors and gee-willikers.
As a fillip for the vegetarians it is worth noting that bonobos eat very
little meat compared to the common chimpanzee, who is an enthusiastic
hunter when he gets the chance.
Fashionable indeed. What better role model for the latest styles in social
engineering could one ask for? (Are there bonobo clubs among our young
wherein our cousins life-style is emulated. I expect so.) Perhaps, however,
one should not rush to quickly to judgement. We are not, after all, either
common chimpanzees or bonobos. If biology has more to say to about our
behaviour than we might like to admit it is also true that the possible
variations are probably greater than we imagine.
Franz De Waal is an honest scientist. If he tantalizes us with the current
theories about the hows and whys of the different modes of sociality and
sexuality of our cousins, he also is careful to point out the objections to
these theories and their speculative nature.
As I said, this is a coffee table book. The photography by Frans Lanting is
truly magnificent.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 22:53:23 +1000
Martin:
>First, there is evidence that primates engage in what
>humans refer to as bisexuality. Male gorillas and
>ourangutans (sp?) have been documented in same-sex
>acts. Sometimes, this happens even though there are
>a plethora of female primates around.
Klo:
>Could you provide some documentation of that. I
>would also be interested in knowing how common it
>is and if there were any extenuating circumstances.
I would like to confirm Martin's evidence there. I
cannot give you the source for it appeared in a
television documentary about apes quite some time
ago. It was probably "The world around us" or
"national geographic". The documentary showed that
one species of ape engaged in male-male and
female-female sexual activities as a form of conflict
resolution as well as the forging of relationships
and bonds. Reasons for sexual acts ranged from the
adoption of another foreign ape to the submission of
one ape to another etc. The society was almost
completely peaceful - whatever the problem or situation
it could be resolved by sex.
Anyway, I don't think that pursuing the naturalness
of an act in another species is proper scientific
evaluation. The documentary explored another species
of ape before this that engaged in cannibalism which
is observed to occur only a few times a year. The
father snatches the baby from the mother and runs
away with the mother chasing after him. A number of
other males assist the kidnap by blocking and confusing
the mother and once the prize is secure, the males
feast. Now that happens in nature - would you dare
call it natural in our faces?
Then there was the case when a mother held onto her
sick baby until it died and even then refused to let
go, but continually caressing it as if it were alive.
Probably mysticism, the grasping onto hope blindly -
something that feeds the fires of religion. Would
you submit to the fact that such behaviour is natural?
So please give up your questions of naturalness. It's
entirely subjective and is as vague as the definition
of life itself.
All the best,
John Ky.
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: Re: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 22:53:12 +1000
Mark:
>Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
It is definitely wrong if it is a cause of genetic
disease. Some genetic diseases require a pair of
impaired genes to realise, and incest greatly
increases that chance.
But what if prohibition of incest was the result
of the inability of bourgeoise law to reckon with
disruption in inheritance priorities, or perhaps
religion?
There was also a scientific study that showed that
the first few years of siblings living together
where crucial to the diminishing of sexual tendencies
between them. Something that may suggest that
adopted children would very rarely involve themselves
in such relationships.
Hey Klo!!!
It might be a good idea to alert Klo here. There
seems to be a natural barrier against incest. It's
likely to be genetic, but at the same time, it is
learned. That is the genes are probably encoded in
such a way that people learn not to form sexual
relationships with the people they contact in their
infancy. This is opposed to the myth that people
have genes that guard against incest directly.
Genetics and environment aren't as separated as
some people think it to be. So Klo you might find
this suggestion useful.
All the best,
John Ky.
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 08:54:39 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement
Neue Einheit:
>The question of how to deal with sexuality plays an important role in all
>ethical questions, formerly also in the emergence of the religions which
>simultaneously comprised also these ethical questions. It is not very daring
>to put forward even the thesis that the experience and the rejection of
>homosexuality is even one of the essential points of the (relatively) modern
>monotheistic religions. In Judaism, in any case, this rejection plays an
>important role. There is also a fundamental realization involved, that the
>concentration upon real sexuality, that is to say between man and woman,
makes
>the human being strong.
Fascinating. Really fascinating. These Maoist revolutionaries remind us of
the proper role of religion in defining sexuality. What is particularly
important interesting is their reflection that it makes the "human being
strong." As Yoshie already pointed out, this is the same thing that was
important to Hitler.
For me the issue is how this sort of reactionary crap filters its way into
the radical movement. The only explanation I have is that it is a crude
attempt to replicate the social mores of the Soviet Union in the mid-1930s
into the Marxist movement of today.
As deep as my respect is for comrades who come out of this milieu, Jim
Hillier and Mark Jones particularly, this is poison that must be fought.
The reason that it must be fought is that it will discredit Marxism.
Bourgeois society has already made great strides in breaking down
homophobic attitudes. Ordinary working people in the United States have
gotten accustomed to the idea that gay people have the same rights as
everybody else.
In my department at Columbia University, there are many out of the closet
gay people since the university has strong policies favoring the right of
sexual preference. At a staff meeting 3 years ago somebody made what he
thought was a harmless joke about certain software being "in the closet".
My boss got up and said that he was deeply offended by the remark. Good for
him.
Under socialism, people will accept sexual preferences just as they accept
musical or food preferences. Sexuality should not primarily be about
propogating the species. That is for religious fundamentalists and other
right-wingers. It should be about pleasure. One of the things that strikes
me about Neue Einheit is their dourness, which is the same as sunday school
preachers when you get down to it.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
From: "John Ky" <hand@syd.speednet.com.au>
To: <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: Adoptive rights and equal rights
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:20:12 +1000
Hartmut:
>If now by certain social parties and organisations the
>"emancipation" of homosexuality (not at all only its
>toleration) is pushed forward, can it be in question
>that this is a deep cut into the country's ethical
>life? And such attacks as launched now in the form of
>the so-called "equal rights" by the parties mentioned
>are not yet known to me at all in history. Such an
>intervention (as the "adoption right ") has not ocurred
>even in the examples of human development which lie far
>in the past. Thus it even is a cut as it has not been
>found yet in the whole history of mankind. The wording
>in the statement by Group Neue Einheit thus is in fact
>correct.
You mention "adoption right" - which is very interesting.
Should gays couples be allowed to adopt children under the
name of "equal rights"?
I say, equal rights yes. Adoption no. Has anyone ever
considered that adoption as rather bourgeoise? Must a
parent who cannot provide for his children provide the
child through adoptive measures? What right does a
wealthier family have to adopt a child? Socialism should
provide more than sufficient sustenance for any individual.
If a parent does not care for her child the parent should
not have had the child in the first place. But if the
deed is done and the child is born without the care of
a parent then the child should be just as financially
able without the parent. This is equal rights - children
are humans too. If others wish to assume roles as
guardians then they remain guardians and are respected
as such - not parents.
In an age where everyone wants a fair share of everything,
people who don't get their fair share rarely look back and
see if the share is justified for anyone at all.
All the best,
John Ky.
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:36:04 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Fw: Lenin on Sex: 2
Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:
>
> 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.
My reply,
No Sid. That was not the original question. Homosexuality and only
homosexuality was the original issue.
That was the point of quoting Lenin's own views on the
> matter.
My reply,
But you did not quote anything Lenin said with respect to homosexuality.
My brief comments were directed at the sexuality question in
> general and not to homosexuality in particular.
My reply,
Exactly. That's the point I am making. But homosexuality was the
issue.
So it is not clear
> why you make the statement "You appear to oppose the latter
> (homosexuality - SC) rather strongly".
My reply,
That was the impression I got from your earlier comments. If your view
needs to be clarified, by all means feel free to do so.
>
> 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).
My reply,
That has bothered me as well. The Zionist propaganda mill has also
managed to convince millions that anyone who is anti-Zionist is also
anti-Semitic, as if the two were identical, which is ridiculous. Even
some Jews are anti-Zionist. Are we to believe that they are
simultaneously anti-semitic.
> 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
>
>
My reply,
What are you saying is the issue in this regard?
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:46:17 +0100
From: Mark Jones <Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement
Louis Proyect wrote:
> As deep as my respect is for comrades who come out of this milieu, Jim
> Hillier and Mark Jones particularly, this is poison that must be fought.
Don't connect Jim or me with Neue Einheit, Lou. They also believe in nuclear
power, I'm told, and other lunacies. This is an open list, but we don't
agree with their homophobia. Assuming they mean it themselves, which
seems hard to credit.
BTW, Jim Hillier sends greetings to all and says he hopes to be back on line next
week.
Mark
*****************************************
From: "Sven Buttler" <sven.buttler@metronet.de>
To: "Leninist International" <leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu>
Subject: L-I: KPD on sexuality
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 15:49:50 +0200
Krixel writes:
"And neither later there was anything of this kind,
neither with the KPD. This subject is entirely new."
You better check your sources before posting such
provocative and disgusting views.
The KPD programme on the subject of sexuality:
"Mainly sexuality is considered a private matter
by the state and is denfended against discrimination
as long as no physical or psycological violence
is used or rights of others are violoated."
I can only appeal to Mark to expell those guys
for spreading Nazi propaganda in disguise
of Marxism.
One personal note: One of my best friends is gay.
Is he in need of mental health care aka brainwashing?
Hardly.
One more thing:
People on this list tend to mix up natural with *normal*.
Is homosexuality normal? No, it isn't, it is not the norm.
Is it natural? Yes, it is for it exists in nature, it is
natural by definition.
---
Sven Buttler
Leninist International Capital Reading Group
http://www.angelfire.com/co/socialism
Communist Party of Germany
http://home.t-online.de/home/KPD-Roter-Morgen/
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:55:42 +0100
From: Mark Jones <Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Re: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
John Ky wrote:
> Mark:
> >Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
>
> It is definitely wrong if it is a cause of genetic
> disease. Some genetic diseases require a pair of
> impaired genes to realise, and incest greatly
> increases that chance.
Actually I've never quite felt the schadenfreude one is supposed to feel
about the fate Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors suffered because of
their liking for their siblings. After all, incest didn't stop families
which indulged it from rising to the top tables in the ancient
hierarchies, did they? Seems like having a wanton eye for one's sister
almost guranteed social success and status in classical antiquity. As
did being a practising homosexual, of course: come to think of it, both
things are true even today of the British aristocracy.
Mark
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 15:20:56 +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:
>
> Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
>
> Mark
Mark
We are delving into biological and genetic questions that have political
consequences. We need some information that is both accurate and
unbiased. Far too much is slanted, both pro and con.
I am not an expert in heredity, but I have been told that the
probability of foetal deformities and mental abnormalities resulting
from incest is extremely high and for simple practical reasons it has
been outlawed.
Klo
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm
>
>
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 15:49:01 +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
Joćo Paulo Monteiro wrote:
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Of course, this percentage thing just can't be done. Every individual is
> a distinct
> case. I would say some individuals are very strongly inclined towards
> homosexuality
> by natural causes, others have a somewhat more open display of sexual
> options at
> their disposal.
My reply,
Good. At least you have taken a position. You are saying it is a
result of natural causes. Now please provide some evidence of same. I
have no problem accepting any data you can produce. Believe me. The
problem is that it is just not coming in sufficient amounts. You need
to make a case based on data.
>
> I think your driving this debate to a somewhat caricatural terrain. The
> real heart
> of the matter (from your standpoint) should be this: can homosexuality
> be
> extricated by education and social environment.
My reply,
No. I disagree. I am not concerned with extricating it, if it is
natural and not a matter of choice.
>
> I think it is very clear that it can't. It isn't possible, let alone
> desirable.
My reply,
Now what is your evidence for this. That is what I am looking for.
Socialist Cuba has a very unfortunate record on this respect.
>
> There will always be gays, Klo. Get use to it.
My reply,
Now that is no argument whatever. There will always be murderers and
rapists too. Am I supposed to accept them as natural. Are they
supposed to have civil rights and liberties.
Cuba has a real problem with this subject.
I, for one, think my own
> sexuality is enriched by the fact that gays exist.
My reply,
How so?
>
> What we should fight is not homosexuality but homophobia.
My reply,
I would agree that homophobia has no place in any sensible society
whether homosexuality is natural or not. If it is an illness, then they
should be treated like any other mentally ill or sick people.
Homophobia and gay-bashing have no place in a sane society, i.e.
socialism, regardless of cause or source. I have no tolerance for this
whatever. If it is not natural, however, legal restrictions are another
matter.
Many
> heterosexual men and women (for understandable reasons) feel some
> revulsion at the idea of homosexuality, which unfortunately is sometimes
> translated into homophobic and discriminatory attitudes.
My reply,
That's true.
>
> What we should fight is fear. This is the revolutionary and
> anti-bourgeois attitude towards sexuality.
My reply,
Fight fear, yes. But is that the only thing that should be opposed.
That's the original issue.
Klo
>
> Joćo Paulo Monteiro
*****************************************
From: farmelantj@JUNO.COM (James Farmelant)
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 10:52:04 -0400
Subject: Nature was (Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT])
On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:23:00 +0000 kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
writes:
....
>I have serious qualms about disagreeing with you but don't you think
>this is a rather weak reed to lean on and does this really prove it
>exists "all along the evolutionary line." Is it done by dogs, cats,
>horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, racoons, birds, hogs, sheep, or
>llamas?
>What primates engage in homosexuality on a regular and broad-based
>basis? These question are critical because, among other things, they
>take the issue out of the cultural conditioning context. It has to be
>determined one way or the other: Is this natural or not because upon
>that decision rests all the other decisions. Once that is determined
>all else falls in place.
> If homosexuality is an illness, a perversion, or a sickness, then
>it needs to be treated and certainly not propagated or promoted or
>allowed to operate unhindered. On the other hand, if it is natural
>and
>is based on genetics primarily, if it is not a matter of choice but of
>physiological makeup, then it not only deserves to be protected,
>fostered, legalized and allowed to operate freely, but stiff penalties
>should be applied to those who operate in any illegal manner to the
>contrary. The problem is that so much of the information is so
>tendentious. What is the truth. That's all I care about.
>
>Klo
>
I find all this discussion of what is natural and unnatural to be of
rather dubious value. The planted axiom in this is that what is
natural is good or acceptable, and what is unnatural unacceptable
or bad. This assumption upon reflection seems to be unsupportable.
As a noted bourgeois philosopher of the last century pointed out in
his essay, "On Nature," nature here means either (1) "the sum of all
phenomena, together with the causes which produced them" or
(2) those phenomena which occur "without the agency ... of man."
When some act is condemned as being unnatural or we are urged
to do something because it is natural it is apparent that neither
possible
meaning for nature can offer us adequate guidance. Under the first
meaning then every action is natural so there are no grounds for
discriminating between alternative courses of action. Applying that
to sexual behavior we would have to say that all possible forms of
sexual behavior whether heterosexual or homosexual including
monogamy, promiscuity, pedophilia, celibacy etc. are all natural.
On the other hand if we take up the second possible meaning of nature
we are no better off. As Mill put it "For while human action cannot
help conforming to Nature in the one meaning of the term, the very
aim of action is to alter and improve Nature in the other meaning."
As Mill pointed out nature is indifferent to our notions of value and
desert. "Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned
for doing to one another, are nature's every day performances."
With regard to human nature, as with nature in general, Mill suggested
that our imperative is "not to follow but to ammend it." In other words
we should not look to nature as a source for norms sexual or
otherwise.
In the same vein I am puzzled by Klo's statement: " On the other hand,
if it is natural and is based on genetics primarily, if it is not a
matter
of choice but ofphysiological makeup, then it not only deserves to be
protected,
fostered, legalized and allowed to operate freely, but stiff penalties
should be applied to those who operate in any illegal manner to the
contrary." It is mighty unclear how or why genetics is supposed to
be relevant to the acceptability or unacceptability of any given variety
of sexual behavior. If it was demonstrated that pedophilia is the
result of a genetic predisposition, I very much doubt that Klo or anyone
else would become persuaded of its moral acceptability. Likewise,
I fail to see why if it was determined that a homosexual orientation
was the result of environment that should be regarded as relevant
to judging its acceptability. That whole issue seems to be something
of a red herring. And in any case the weight of the evidence seems
to be that human sexual orientation are the results of a complex
dialectic between genes and environment anyway. Here if anything
there is a need for a dialectical rather than a simplistic mechanistic
approach.
Jim Farmelant
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 16:12:17 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: Reply to Martin Schreader
Krixel@aol.com wrote:
>
> (Immediately after "Results From the Election Campaign" by Group Neue Einheit
> was mailed to this list, M. Schreader on Sept., 28, 1998 attacked the whole
> piece. I'm forwarding a reply by the group to this early attack of his.)
>
> Reply to M. Schreader
> (Oct., 2, 1998)
>
> At first it has to be said about Schreader's accusations, that the statement
> by Gruppe Neue Einheit about the election campaign of the parties is not a
> program or a programmatic document but a public attack vis a vis this
> extortionist election, dealing especially with this subject. The accusations
> that several social questions are not touched upon in it are out of place.
>
> Now about the most conspicuous in his attacks. He raises his accusations first
> of all in the context of the SPD's and the Greens' action concerning the so-
> called emancipation of homosexuality. So we shall refute this first.
>
> The author straightfaced asserts that "German Marxism has always had a proud
> history of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois state." When
> and where is this supposed to have happened? There is no statement in favor of
> the homosexuals during the First International and the time of Social
> Democracy until 1914. This is bare invention.
My reply,
I would be inclined to ask the same question.
And neither later there was
> anything of this kind, neither with the KPD. This subject is entirely new.
> Only since the beginning of the seventies some allegedly Marxist organisations
> picked this up. As for Marx, he made fun of some people demanding that the
> labor movement should give its support for homosexuals. For that he was even
> attacked by so-called representatives of homosexuals. Engels expressed his
> disgust regarding homosexuality.
My reply,
Now I will have to switch hats and ask you some questions Krixel. Where
did Marx and Engels make these comments. Could you provide the
citations.
> We only can once more request the author to prove his assertions. There will
> not be left much of them.
My reply
But you will have to prove yours as well.
>
> Further, about the assertions about the Bolsheviks.
> Known to us is only that the Soviet government annuled the whole section on
> sexual criminal law in tsarist criminal law, which concerned several
> questions. But there is not a single statement by Lenin about homosexuality,
> not even a single remark. With regard to Lenin, it is an invention that Lenin
> ever gave his support for such a cause.
My reply,
I agree with you on this. I know of nothing said by Lenin. That's why
I said earlier that today's Marxists are going to have to "wing it" on
this issue. There are no clearly established guidelines. In fact,
there is virtually no discussion at all.
If Schreader is a director of a Lenin-
> internet-archive, he should just give some proofs for his views. The Soviet
> Union in the further development certainly had its reasons when it excluded
> such phenomena of decadence from social life.
My reply,
You say "decadence." What is your proof for that. What evidence do you
have that it is not natural?
>
> Furthermore, where is it here about criminal law? With the SPD; the Greens and
> also the mass media it is about the so-called equal rights, even about so-
> called "marriages" of homosexuals, and even about the right to adopt children.
> Where, at any time, something like that was demanded or only thought in the
> former Soviet Union, in China or in a revolutionary state, where in the former
> history of mankind!
My reply,
Again. I would have to agree with this in substance with respect to
revolutionary states.
It is nothing but perfidy to insinuate something like that
> to revolutionary states. And equally it is nothing but perfidy if today's
> society which is ruled by the great finance and capital oligarchies wants
> something like that to become law. There is nothing like that in the
> revolutionary labor movement.
My reply,
As far as I am aware you are correct in your last sentence.
>
> "Equal rights for oppressed people, in this case homosexuals" - what kind of a
> slogan is this supposed to be? It is a persiflage of Marxism, a very bad one.
My reply,
But we don't know that until we determine its legitimacy and that is
still a matter of dispute.
Klo
(snip)
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 16:26:08 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement
My reply,
The problem I have with this statement, Krixel, is that it is primarily
based on aesthetics and perceived degeneration, as opposed to hard
scientific data. "It just doesn't look right" isn't good enough for
me. I need something more substantive, something concrete. People
using chopsticks or drinking blood from headless snakes doesn't look
right either, but I can't support prohibitions for that alone. Nor am I
interested in what societies have done throughout history, in light of
the fact that in nearly all of them there has been private ownership of
the means of PD and Ex.
Klo
Krixel@aol.com wrote:
>
> A short fundamental statement
>
> (The following statement containing some historical points about homosexuality
> was written by Hartmut Dicke on Sept., 29, 1998 as an answer to a request in a
> German language newsgroup which asked for explanation why we, the Group Neue
> Einheit, view the laws planned by the SPD and the Greens for the so-called
> "emancipation of homosexuals" as an "utterly deep cut into the moral and
> cultural life" [See translator's note at the end].
> I'm forwarding this to L-I as a further, more fundamental contribution to the
> current debate.)
>
> An astonishing request since it is evident what is meant. But one can as well
> outline it by some historical points.
>
> In the whole development of mankind the development of sexuality (of course
> between man and woman) itself forms a fundamental element of the human
> culture, reversely sexuality also is a reflection of the social conditions.
>
> "Equal rights" as intended here by the parties mentioned [the SPD and the
> Greens, translator's note] IMO have never existed. In this context it is
> sometimes referred to earlier instances or primitive societies.
>
> Homosexuality is only tolerated, in a few exceptional cases, as an
> extraordinary form; in early history it occurs, so to say, as an experimental
> and a religious-ritualistic form. Later, however, it occurs as a concomitant
> form of classes which are extremely parasitic, exploitative and characterized
> by misanthropy (examples: the old Spartan aristocracy, the antique Roman
> imperial mob in the phase of decline).
>
> Since appr. 2500 - 3000 years it is proscribed, and not by chance. The humans
> understood that it cannot be tolerated, that it contradicts the aesthetics and
> dignity of the human being. Therefore severe codes serving its prohibition.
>
> The question of how to deal with sexuality plays an important role in all
> ethical questions, formerly also in the emergence of the religions which
> simultaneously comprised also these ethical questions. It is not very daring
> to put forward even the thesis that the experience and the rejection of
> homosexuality is even one of the essential points of the (relatively) modern
> monotheistic religions. In Judaism, in any case, this rejection plays an
> important role. There is also a fundamental realization involved, that the
> concentration upon real sexuality, that is to say between man and woman, makes
> the human being strong.
>
> If now by certain social parties and organisations the "emancipation" of
> homosexuality (not at all only its toleration) is pushed forward, can it be in
> question that this is a deep cut into the country's ethical life? And such
> attacks as launched now in the form of the so-called "equal rights" by the
> parties mentioned are not yet known to me at all in history. Such an
> intervention (as the "adoption right ") has not ocurred even in the examples
> of human development which lie far in the past. Thus it even is a cut as it
> has not been found yet in the whole history of mankind. The wording in the
> statement by Group Neue Einheit thus is in fact correct.
>
> Such a social attack, in my opinion, goes even much stronger against the
> cohesion of society than some economic policies aiming at de-solidarisation.
> This attack is not directed against the dictatorship of money and its brutal
> effects which from day to day we can realize more clearly, but it runs exactly
> parallel to it. Because of that it is anything but "emancipative".
>
> Hartmut Dicke
>
> c 1998, H.D.
>
> (Translator's note: there is a problem with the term "moral" in English. It
> does not adequately translate the word "sittlich" used in the original German
> text. "Sittlich" is of a broader meaning, comprising, e.g., also cultural
> values and habits. So the expression "sittliches Leben" is now translated
> "moral and cultural life".)
>
>
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 16:53:35 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
John Ky wrote:
>
> Martin:
> >First, there is evidence that primates engage in what
> >humans refer to as bisexuality. Male gorillas and
> >ourangutans (sp?) have been documented in same-sex
> >acts. Sometimes, this happens even though there are
> >a plethora of female primates around.
>
> Klo:
> >Could you provide some documentation of that. I
> >would also be interested in knowing how common it
> >is and if there were any extenuating circumstances.
>
> I would like to confirm Martin's evidence there. I
> cannot give you the source for it appeared in a
> television documentary about apes quite some time
> ago. It was probably "The world around us" or
> "national geographic". The documentary showed that
> one species of ape engaged in male-male and
> female-female sexual activities as a form of conflict
> resolution as well as the forging of relationships
> and bonds. Reasons for sexual acts ranged from the
> adoption of another foreign ape to the submission of
> one ape to another etc. The society was almost
> completely peaceful - whatever the problem or situation
> it could be resolved by sex.
My reply,
You could very well be taking an exception and trying to make it the
rule. How often did this occur. Were there extenuating circumstances.
Was it across the board or only exhibited by one or two. You are
jumping to a conclusion too early.
>
> Anyway, I don't think that pursuing the naturalness
> of an act in another species is proper scientific
> evaluation.
My reply,
Can't agree at all. Other animals have always been used in experiments
and observations to learn about human behavior, from mice in the maze to
chimps at the primate centers to Pavlov's dog. Moreover, you have
leaped to a quick judgment based upon observations of one species and a
few individuals within it.
The documentary explored another species
> of ape before this that engaged in cannibalism which
> is observed to occur only a few times a year.
My reply,
Why do you assume this is even relevant. Homosexuals don't perform
their deeds only a few times a year. And you are admitting it is only
displayed by a particular species of ape. We are talking about an
activity that is engaged in by millions.
The
> father snatches the baby from the mother and runs
> away with the mother chasing after him. A number of
> other males assist the kidnap by blocking and confusing
> the mother and once the prize is secure, the males
> feast. Now that happens in nature - would you dare
> call it natural in our faces?
My reply,
How do you know it is not for that particular species. You are rushing
to judgment again.
>
> Then there was the case when a mother held onto her
> sick baby until it died and even then refused to let
> go, but continually caressing it as if it were alive.
> Probably mysticism, the grasping onto hope blindly -
> something that feeds the fires of religion. Would
> you submit to the fact that such behaviour is natural?
My reply,
Mother what? An ape or a human being? In either case, it is could very
well be a reasonable natural reaction.
>
> So please give up your questions of naturalness. It's
> entirely subjective and is as vague as the definition
> of life itself.
>
> All the best,
>
> John Ky.
>
>
My reply,
No it is not entirely subjective. Not by a long ways. This kind of
research is reproducible, predictable, and reliable and for you to
allege that nothing can be learned about human behavior from animal
behavior is ridiculous. A veritable army of scientists would strongly
disagree with you, if not actually laugh.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 17:22:43 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement
Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> Neue Einheit:
> >The question of how to deal with sexuality plays an important role in all
> >ethical questions, formerly also in the emergence of the religions which
> >simultaneously comprised also these ethical questions. It is not very daring
> >to put forward even the thesis that the experience and the rejection of
> >homosexuality is even one of the essential points of the (relatively) modern
> >monotheistic religions. In Judaism, in any case, this rejection plays an
> >important role. There is also a fundamental realization involved, that the
> >concentration upon real sexuality, that is to say between man and woman,
> makes
> >the human being strong.
>
> Fascinating. Really fascinating. These Maoist revolutionaries remind us of
> the proper role of religion in defining sexuality. What is particularly
> important interesting is their reflection that it makes the "human being
> strong." As Yoshie already pointed out, this is the same thing that was
> important to Hitler.
>
> For me the issue is how this sort of reactionary crap filters its way into
> the radical movement. The only explanation I have is that it is a crude
> attempt to replicate the social mores of the Soviet Union in the mid-1930s
> into the Marxist movement of today.
>
> As deep as my respect is for comrades who come out of this milieu, Jim
> Hillier and Mark Jones particularly, this is poison that must be fought.
My reply,
And your evidence for this is what, Lou. I have asked you this before
and failed to receive an adequate reply. As long as you are going to
take such an adamant stance in this regard, then I am going to feel
compelled to repeat my queries.
> The reason that it must be fought is that it will discredit Marxism.
My reply,
How so? I am still awaiting a reply.
> Bourgeois society has already made great strides in breaking down
> homophobic attitudes. Ordinary working people in the United States have
> gotten accustomed to the idea that gay people have the same rights as
> everybody else.
My reply,
Don't kid yourself. All they are doing is keeping the lid on and given
the right conditions, especially a depression in which there is a need
to play off groups against one another and a tendency for people to look
around for the causes of their plight, you'd find out how "tolerant"
things have become. The bourgeoisie would have a field day using
racism, sexism, anti-homosexualism etc. in order to play people off
against one another.
>
> In my department at Columbia University, there are many out of the closet
> gay people since the university has strong policies favoring the right of
> sexual preference. At a staff meeting 3 years ago somebody made what he
> thought was a harmless joke about certain software being "in the closet".
> My boss got up and said that he was deeply offended by the remark. Good for
> him.
My reply,
I would agree. Whether homosexuality is natural or not, that kind of
comment is completely out of bounds. It should not be made if the
homosexual is ill and it should not be made if he is normal.
>
> Under socialism, people will accept sexual preferences just as they accept
> musical or food preferences.
My reply,
No way. Are you saying pedophiles should be allowed to operate
unhindered. Are you saying pornographers should be able to peddle their
wares to children because it gives them a sexual high. Are you saying
people should be allowed to "do it" in public because they enjoy being
exhibitionists. I could give a rather lengthy list of these kinds of
examples. Are you telling me they will be socially acceptable under
socialism? To quote my daughter: I don't think so.
Sexuality should not primarily be about
> propogating the species. That is for religious fundamentalists and other
> right-wingers. It should be about pleasure. One of the things that strikes
> me about Neue Einheit is their dourness, which is the same as sunday school
> preachers when you get down to it.
>
> Louis Proyect
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
>
>
My reply,
"It should be about pleasure." Said like a real revolutionary :) It is
not that Neue Einheit is so prudish, but it is your lack of moral
restrictions. Let me ask you. What would you not allow in the way of
sexual expression? I would be interested in having a detailed outline.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:51:30 -0400
From: Martin Schreader <martin@marxists.org>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement
Krixel@aol.com wrote:
>
> A short fundamental statement
They misnamed this post. It should read "A short FUNDAMENTALIST
statement".
It's just more reactionary and counterrevolutionary tripe.
Martin
"Under the red flag, wearing a pink triangle."
--
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: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:04:16 +0000
From: kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Nature was (Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT])
James Farmelant wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:23:00 +0000 kloDMcKinsey <klomckin@infinet.com>
> writes:
> ....
>
> >I have serious qualms about disagreeing with you but don't you think
> >this is a rather weak reed to lean on and does this really prove it
> >exists "all along the evolutionary line." Is it done by dogs, cats,
> >horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, racoons, birds, hogs, sheep, or
> >llamas?
> >What primates engage in homosexuality on a regular and broad-based
> >basis? These question are critical because, among other things, they
> >take the issue out of the cultural conditioning context. It has to be
> >determined one way or the other: Is this natural or not because upon
> >that decision rests all the other decisions. Once that is determined
> >all else falls in place.
> > If homosexuality is an illness, a perversion, or a sickness, then
> >it needs to be treated and certainly not propagated or promoted or
> >allowed to operate unhindered. On the other hand, if it is natural
> >and
> >is based on genetics primarily, if it is not a matter of choice but of
> >physiological makeup, then it not only deserves to be protected,
> >fostered, legalized and allowed to operate freely, but stiff penalties
> >should be applied to those who operate in any illegal manner to the
> >contrary. The problem is that so much of the information is so
> >tendentious. What is the truth. That's all I care about.
> >
> >Klo
> >
> I find all this discussion of what is natural and unnatural to be of
> rather dubious value.
My reply,
I don't. I find it of great value.
The planted axiom in this is that what is
> natural is good or acceptable, and what is unnatural unacceptable
> or bad.
My reply,
You sound like a bourgeois theologian. Good or bad is not the
question. That implies choice. The question is whether not the people
involved can do anything about their physiological makeup and the
resultant behavior resulting therefrom. You don't punish someone for
doing acts over which they have no control any more than you slap a baby
because it broke its plate or punish a 14 year old for having wet
dreams.
This assumption upon reflection seems to be unsupportable.
> As a noted bourgeois philosopher of the last century pointed out in
> his essay, "On Nature," nature here means either (1) "the sum of all
> phenomena, together with the causes which produced them" or
> (2) those phenomena which occur "without the agency ... of man."
> When some act is condemned as being unnatural or we are urged
> to do something because it is natural it is apparent that neither
> possible
> meaning for nature can offer us adequate guidance. Under the first
> meaning then every action is natural so there are no grounds for
> discriminating between alternative courses of action. Applying that
> to sexual behavior we would have to say that all possible forms of
> sexual behavior whether heterosexual or homosexual including
> monogamy, promiscuity, pedophilia, celibacy etc. are all natural.
> On the other hand if we take up the second possible meaning of nature
> we are no better off. As Mill put it "For while human action cannot
> help conforming to Nature in the one meaning of the term, the very
> aim of action is to alter and improve Nature in the other meaning."
> As Mill pointed out nature is indifferent to our notions of value and
> desert. "Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned
> for doing to one another, are nature's every day performances."
> With regard to human nature, as with nature in general, Mill suggested
> that our imperative is "not to follow but to ammend it."
My reply,
"Human nature." There's that phrase again. I wish someone could define
it.
In other words
> we should not look to nature as a source for norms sexual or
> otherwise.
My reply,
Can't agree. Whether or not other animals are doing a certain act is
powerful evidence as to whether or not it should be accepted. Not
necessarily conclusive, but powerful.
>
> In the same vein I am puzzled by Klo's statement: " On the other hand,
> if it is natural and is based on genetics primarily, if it is not a
> matter
> of choice but ofphysiological makeup, then it not only deserves to be
> protected,
> fostered, legalized and allowed to operate freely, but stiff penalties
> should be applied to those who operate in any illegal manner to the
> contrary." It is mighty unclear how or why genetics is supposed to
> be relevant to the acceptability or unacceptability of any given variety
> of sexual behavior.
My reply,
It is quite relevant because you don't punish people for doing acts over
which they have no control, especially when genetically based.
If it was demonstrated that pedophilia is the
> result of a genetic predisposition, I very much doubt that Klo or anyone
> else would become persuaded of its moral acceptability.
My reply,
Wrong again. You are more "conservative" than I. I would quite willing
to accept this behavior if it could be proven to be natural and not an
illness or perversion.
Likewise,
> I fail to see why if it was determined that a homosexual orientation
> was the result of environment that should be regarded as relevant
> to judging its acceptability.
My reply,
You are the one bringing in environment. I was focusing on genetics and
basic physiological makeup.
If it is environmentally based,m then you are into a decidedly different
milieu. That can be altered and thus you are implying homosexuality can
be altered or abolished. Of course, genes can be altered too and if it
is genetically based then conditions could change with new research.
But the question for now is the source and how should it be approached.
That whole issue seems to be something
> of a red herring. And in any case the weight of the evidence seems
> to be that human sexual orientation are the results of a complex
> dialectic between genes and environment anyway. Here if anything
> there is a need for a dialectical rather than a simplistic mechanistic
> approach.
>
> Jim Farmelant
My reply,
I have no problem with that. Now if you would care to give us your
assessment as regards the specifics and what our course should be, I am
all ears, or should I say eyes. Closing out with a grandiose
generalization that sounds profound hardly clarifies the issue, proves
your point, or determines our course.
Klo
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:13:03 -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
Mark Jones wrote:
> Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
>
Under present social relations (and as Mao pointed out, Marxists have no
crystal ball) some forms of incest (father-daughter, mother-son, and perhaps
brother-sister) often have a rather unpleasant and long lasting impact on the
lives of the children at least. I have no examples that I can remember of
effects of brother-sister incest. (Incidentally, incest is almost always
heterosexual.) But then Defoe involved his heroine in an (unknowing) marriage
with one of her sons. No apparent damage. The hoo-ha in Sophocles' version of
the Oedipus story strikes one at a distance as a bit much. (It makes sense only
in the context of the strong inheritance of tribal thought even in the bright
noonday of classical Athens.)
And of course, beyond the forms I mention, the definition of incest varies
immensely from culture to culture. First cousin marriage is permitted in some
states of the U.S., forbidden in others. I understand that for an outsider the
rules of native Australians are more difficult to grasp than the most abstruse
academic disciplines -- which means that incest is essentially a
social/historical rather than "natural" concept. That was the source of my
anger at Siddarth -- the total repudiation of the fundamental principles of
marxism implicit in his hauling in of incest in the context of a debate over
homsexuality.
Carrol
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:46:21 +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
Charles F. Moreira wrote:
>
> Comrades,
>
> kloDMcKinsey wrote:
> >
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > We are delving into biological and genetic questions that have political
> > consequences. We need some information that is both accurate and
> > unbiased. Far too much is slanted, both pro and con.
>
> My comments:-
> 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 to reverse it?
Charles
These questions of yours go to the heart of the matter and the remainder
of your post is essentially a history of how societies have approached
this issue in the past. That is of secondary importance to me.
Accurate answers to these questions must be found. I know what the
American Psychiatric Association says, but are they the last word. I am
looking for people willing to answer these questions and have the data
to back it up.
Klo
Klo
>
> 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 regarded 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 do they tolerate or advocate openly
> flaunting it either, even today.
> 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 in
> 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 resort 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?
>
> The main reason why Marxists should defend homosexuals
> (including lesbians) against attack, oppression and discrimination under
> bourgeois society is because the bourgeoise make use of race, gender and
> homosexual orientation to create divisions within the working class and
> just as Marxists oppose racism and the oppression of women onder
> capitalism, likewise Marxists should defend homosexuals.
> It is true of course that homosexuals exist in all classes and some of
> them are capitalists too but the same can be said of the various ethnic
> minorities as well as women.
> Dependent upon whether homosexuality can be reversed or not, Marxists
> should also allow homosexuals to go about their sexual affairs in 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 must 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 seen, 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 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.
>
> Klo:-
> > I am not an expert in heredity, but I have been told that the
> > probability of foetal deformities and mental abnormalities resulting
> > from incest is extremely high and for simple practical reasons it has
> > been outlawed.
> >
> > Klo
>
> Neither am I but I have been told that by my Chinese friends that
> Chinese culture is against marriage between people from the same *clan*
> (such as a Wong marrying another Wong however distantly related they may
> be) and understand that this is to prevent the sorts of abnormalities
> and deformities Klo refers to above.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Yours fraternally
>
> Charles
>
>
--
The Best to you,
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:50:19 +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
Incidentally Charles you said,
"Finally, can anything be done to reverse it?"
I am not really interested in doing that, if it is natural and no
sickness, illness, or perversion is attached.
Klo
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:05:24 -0400
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
Sid Chatterjee:
>
> Well, what about other
>'Puritan' values which all of us have imbibed from our childhood days
>onwards. Values like "speak the truth", "share your things with
>others", "be moderate in your habits", "do not smoke" and so on. Have
>all of these things to be thrown out too? The ruling class preaches
>all these things but practice their very opposite. That is why their
>moral outpourings are hypocritical as Lenin remarked.
What does this have to do with puritanical attitudes towards gay people? We
are dealing with repressive behavior consistent with ideology. They threw
gay people in jail for breaking sodomy laws until protests made these laws
either unenforceable or thrown off the books. I have no idea why you
confuse these questions so willfully. When gay people want to enjoy sex,
they should not be imprisoned or blackmailed. Get it? I guess not.
>Both of the aspects, hedonism and repressiveness contain dangers.
>Which one to emphasize depends on time, place and historical setting.
>What Louis calls 'Puritanism' actually prevails over much of the
>world today and is practiced by the majority of humanity.
You are still confusing things. The distinction is not between repression
and hedonism, but repression and the freedom to express one's sexuality.
When my fellow workers at Columbia University decide to enjoy same-sex
relationships, this is not hedonism. It is simply satisfying their desires.
My boss has been living with the same guy for 15 years, an accountant.
There is as much "hedonism" in their relationship as there was in my mom
and dad's.
>
>One other thing. If one is an opportunist, his/her opportunism will
>reveal itself in different facets of behavior, including sexual
>behavior.
What is opportunist sexual behavior? Nelson Mandela masturbating?
>
>It is also interesting that Louis, who frequently presents entire
>articles by the recent MR crowd and others like David Harvey, John
>Bellamy Foster, Alan Wald, Ellen Wood - modern academic 'Marxists',
>etc in his own list, should raise issue here with what he calls
>"quotation mongering" from the works of the founders of Marxism.
You are quoting Lenin in order to legitimize puritanism. If you want to
legitimize puritanism, then don't drag poor Lenin's remarks from a
different time and place into it. In Lenin's age, homosexuality was a
crime. Tchaikowsky was in the closet, as were millions of Russians. The
Russian Revolution liberated them. Instead of recognizing this reality, you
quote Lenin out of context.
>His
>dismissive use of the words "dead Russians" is superficial,
>chauvinistic, contemptuous, and which the Yeltsin gang, and the
>people who run the IMF, WTO, WB would surely love to hear. After all,
>they have being trying to get rid of Lenin and banish his memory all
>these decades.
Oh, right. Banish the memory of Lenin. That's what this discussion is
about. No, what it is about is that you have all sorts of sexual hang-ups.
Everytime the subject of homosexuality or prostitution comes up, you turn
into a Kraft-Ebbing case study. Puritanism in your homeland, by the way,
has caused discussion of AIDS prevention to be next to impossible. That is
why India faces the most extensive outbreak of the deadly disease in the
world. Go get laid. You might enjoy it.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 13:07:51 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@mail.ilstu.edu>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu, siddhart@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
siddarth,
I seems I owe you an apology. I apparently read the post I responded to
out of context and misinterpreted your position merely a carping
expression of homophobia. That was apparently the wrong interpretation.
Regrets,
Carrol
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 14:22:37 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@mail.ilstu.edu>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> You are still confusing things. The distinction is not between repression
> and hedonism, but repression and the freedom to express one's sexuality.
> When my fellow workers at Columbia University decide to enjoy same-sex
> relationships, this is not hedonism. It is simply satisfying their desires.
> My boss has been living with the same guy for 15 years, an accountant.
> There is as much "hedonism" in their relationship as there was in my mom
> and dad's.
Lou, don't knock hedonism - it is both an ancient philosophy *and* the line of
thought which leads (led to) Marxism, which is at its very core a hedonism,
i.e. Anti-hedonist philsosophies include Platonism, Aristotelianism (though
Aristotle's thought includes the germs of hedonism), Stoicism (and its offshoot
Christianity), Buddhism, Confucianism, and every other reactionary philosophy
you can name.
The basis of all these anti-human (i.e., anti-hedonist) philosophers was (as
Plato was quite aware) and ethic grounded in the division of mental and manual
labor, with the implication that somehow physical pleasures are "lower" (lower
class) than the "mental pleasures" reserved for a bloated ruling class and its
lackeys. Klo and his gang are simply protege's of those ancient defenders of
class rule, the Stoics, and this stoicism is at the basis of their really
profound repudiation of marxism.
Klo would have done wonderfully as a literature professor at Harvard, Yale,
Oxford, etc. in the 1950s 1960s. The secret driving power of the "new
criticism" and related schools was the condemnation of the low moral capacity
of the lower classes, who could not understand the finer things of life. Why
fight a revolution if the end result (even the far-off end result called a
classless society) merely continues the contempt of humanity (except for the
ruling class) expressed in Christianity and Stoicism. The contempt in the
ordinary usage of such terms as peasant, drudge, villein (peasant = criminal),
redneck (permanently sun-burned because of stoop work in the fields), and a
host of other terms. This whole tradition is summarized in that despicable
phrase of Socrates that humanists love to quote, "An unexamined life is not
worth living," so it is harmless sport for Columbian ranchers in the 1950s to
organize gala hunting parties -- to hunt down Indians.
Or read Hinton's *Fanshen*, which I am currently re-reading, and it becomes
gradually obvious that (despite such serious errors as persecution of
homosexuals) the Chinese Revolution had at near its core the defense of the
right of the peasantry to physical pleasure.
Carrol
*****************************************
From: Les Schaffer <godzilla@netmeg.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 16:01:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
Carrol Cox spoke:
>> This whole tradition is summarized in that despicable phrase of
>> Socrates that humanists love to quote, "An unexamined life is
>> not worth living,"
uh, what is so despicable about this phrase to you? i don't see the
connection, offhand, between this notion and the contempt of humanity
by one group or another.
les schaffer
*****************************************
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 05:09:58 +0800
From: "Charles F. Moreira" <cfm@pc.jaring.my>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany
Comrades,
kloDMcKinsey wrote:
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> > Is there anything wrong with incest, actually?
> >
> > Mark
>
> Mark
>
> We are delving into biological and genetic questions that have political
> consequences. We need some information that is both accurate and
> unbiased. Far too much is slanted, both pro and con.
My comments:-
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 to reverse 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 regarded 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 do they tolerate or advocate openly
flaunting it either, even today.
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 in
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 resort 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?
The main reason why Marxists should defend homosexuals
(including lesbians) against attack, oppression and discrimination under
bourgeois society is because the bourgeoise make use of race, gender and
homosexual orientation to create divisions within the working class and
just as Marxists oppose racism and the oppression of women onder
capitalism, likewise Marxists should defend homosexuals.
It is true of course that homosexuals exist in all classes and some of
them are capitalists too but the same can be said of the various ethnic
minorities as well as women.
Dependent upon whether homosexuality can be reversed or not, Marxists
should also allow homosexuals to go about their sexual affairs in 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 must 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 seen, 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 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.
Klo:-
> I am not an expert in heredity, but I have been told that the
> probability of foetal deformities and mental abnormalities resulting
> from incest is extremely high and for simple practical reasons it has
> been outlawed.
>
> Klo
Neither am I but I have been told that by my Chinese friends that
Chinese culture is against marriage between people from the same *clan*
(such as a Wong marrying another Wong however distantly related they may
be) and understand that this is to prevent the sorts of abnormalities
and deformities Klo refers to above.
<snipped>
Yours fraternally
Charles
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 22:57:46 +0100
From: Mark Jones <Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Marxism, which is at its very core a hedonism
>
I thought Marx was a disciple of Aristotle? BTW, my Oxford Concise has hedonism as
'belief in pleasure as the highest good and mankind's proper aim'. Sound more like
Jefferson than Marx. In any case, whatever the term's classical antecedents, its
contemporary aroma is that of the dedicated pursuit of personal gratification by
solipsists. Surely Marx saw the proletariat as emancipatory because it embodied the
reality principle, not the pleasure principle, and the form this energising
principle of proletarian self-activity took historically was collective action for
the common good, not hedonism which is by definition individualistic.
Mark
*****************************************
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 00:24:44 +0100
From: "Joćo 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:
> I, for one, think my own
> > sexuality is enriched by the fact that gays exist.
>
> My reply,
>
> How so?
>
Sexuality is not a essence. Sexuality is a language, a relational thing. It is,
of course, based on one's genetic patrimony. But it is also the result of
trillions of gazes, touches and impressions along one's life.
Over the years I have had some friends that were gay and with which I had very
good intellectual and indeed physical empathy. I liked them. It's that simple. I
wouldn't have sex with them because I'm not a libertine. I'm kind of a temperate
person and my business is not to relentlessly explore the outer limits of my
body like Sade. But that sociability is gratifying and contributes to the
shaping of one's sexual profile.
That's the way to treat homophobia. Against fear - trust. Friendship is the best
sexual school there is. The world is diverse and I like it that way. Nothing
human should be alien to us. There is no questionning that the "sexual
revolution", feminism and the gay/lesbian movement have transformed the lives
and practices of heterosexual couples profoundly (me and my wife included). An
old book by Pascal Bruckner and Alain Finkielkraut - "Le Nouveau Désordre
Amoureux" (1977) - traces it in detail.
You cannot find any sure orientation on sexual matters on the founders of
marxism. Things have changed very much on the field of sexual sociability,
notably in these last 30 years. "All that is solid melts into air" (Manifesto).
It's not hedonism or bourgeois decadence. It's not po-mo chaos and contingency.
Things haven't settled down yet so there is much confusion (and insecurity for
some) but I believe it is a giant shift in the family structures. And I believe
things have been developing our way surely and consistently, despite the
backlash of the 80's.
Precarization (and feminization) of work, precarization of sexual and family
bonds and precarization of cultural references (immigrant workers) will, in due
time, exact its toll on the capitalist order. The ideological hegemony of the
bourgeoisie is weakened as these vehicles of socialization of its values are
fragmented and dispersed. You only need to occupy the terrain with new forms of
workers' solidarity (which, unfortunately, is also difficult and far from done,
as yet).
If not yet on the workplace (appropriation of the means of production) or in the
"polis", at home we are slowly becoming hegemonic in the gamscian sense.
Joćo Paulo Monteiro
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:32:25 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@mail.ilstu.edu>
To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu
Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2
Think it over: *any* statement of the form, "Such and such a life is not
worth living!" Who judges? And of course Socrates (i.e., Plato, and most
of those who quote it, though some are innocent) confine the process of
"examining" life (one's own or others) to those who are freed from the
equally demeaning activities of manual labor and physical enjoyment. Some
Englishman or Englishwoman, I forget which, made a half-serious joke
around a century ago, "Live? We leave that to the servants."
I am convinced that for Europeans Plato's *Republic* (it would, I suppose,
be Mencius in China) is absolutely crucial reading: it is the archetype of
The Enemy. It is crucial to read to fulfill the demand of the Chinese
military writer quoted by Mao, "Know your enemy and Know yourself and you
can fight a thousand battles without a defeat."
Les Schaffer wrote:
> Carrol Cox spoke:
>
> >> This whole tradition is summarized in that despicable phrase of
> >> Socrates that humanists love to quote, "An unexamined life is
> >> not worth living,"
>
> uh, what is so despicable about this phrase to you? i don't see the
> connection, offhand, between this notion and the contempt of humanity
> by one group or another.
>
> les schaffer
>
>
*****************************************
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 19:44:05 -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
Walid Saba wrote:
>The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL.
Sieg Heil, buddy.
Doug
*******************************************
end of part 2 of 3
continued in part 3 of 3