Discussion on Leninist-International about Homosexuality 1998 ******************************************* From: Krixel@aol.com Date sent: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 15:13:09 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Send reply to: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Results from the election campaign in Germany - published on Friday 25th September - The election campaign is over and an incredible flood of phrases has come down on the people. Most people are considering if they are to vote for somebody who does them least harm. There is hardly any true conviction for the parliament's parties. And we think that this is quite significant for the character of the elections in general. They do not at all provide a legitimation for anything and everything after the election in the way the politicians imagine. The sole existence of a mode for voting does not prove anything with regard to democracy. Even the media which are closely connected with these parties talk about the parties' distance. All the more is important what is to be decided by these "elections". Many people feel that after these elections the great "fleecing" will start, and there is indeed a lot indicating this. A worldwide crisis of the much- extolled capitalist system is knocking at the door. Therefore there is above all one thing important: these elections do not provide a legitimation for the extortionate measures following these elections. Almost all parties portray themselves as "tax lowerer party", the lowering of the "additional wages costs" being the first "deep concern" of all of them. But it is not to be reckoned that even one of these parties will be able to take serious steps or is even willing to do so. In this election campaign the SPD attacked and made promises as, for example, reversing certain single decisions (higher taxes for night work). CDU, CSU and FDP have conducted a policy of favoring the rich, of shifting the tax burden even more from the rich towards the poorer and working strata. Possessors, state profiteers, speculators and artists of tax deduction have profited from that and have in an incredible way enriched themselves out of the long since overindebted state purse (together with numerous politicians). The SPD started a social agitation that during the last years the rich virtually did no more pay any taxes whereas the share of the income tax and the indirect taxes contributed by the bulk of the population increased tremendously. And this is really a result of the CDU/CSU and the FPD. Although the matter has a decade-long prehistory in which also the SPD is involved, only after 1990 it has extremely grown rampant. Certainly it cannot be predominantly put down to the refusal of the tax legislation in June, 1997, by the SPD. But Kohl's government after all can point to what would result from the SPD's policy, what would result, for example, from the ecological programs in connection with the Greens, and that both these parties are not interested at all in real lowering of taxes. There is no indication at all that under the SPD anything in this respect would improve, on the contrary: if you look at the "ecological demands " of the SPD and the Greens it becomes clear that in the background there are lurking bestial unsocial demands which economically come up to total impoverishment of the less well-off population, further desindustrialization, and which by their consequences must lead to politically going backward and depriving the population of its rights. For a short moment this contradiction flared up when the Greens by their demand to raise the gas price to 5 marks per litre laid open their essence and a wave of indignation flooded the country. Most of all, as it is, the tax lowering propaganda glossing things over all the way gapes open with the real and fundamental program of the Greens. All at once this demand made it clear to many people what green policy means in concrete practice. The Greens since then have conducted a hypocritical election campaign in which they put their real essential demands to the back and came up with a lot of social slogans ("relief for the small and medium incomes", "lower social contributions", "make labor cheaper again while raising net income"). In fact the Greens have not only the 5-DM-demand in their pocket. In almost every realm, by the so-called energy-conservation-legislation, they try to gag the population with the exception of the really rich, to completely restrict life by economic conditions and to make it just one big prison within the state bureaucracy. Their protection of the environment, their alleged care for nature is nothing but pretext. It is from them that other parties as the SPD, but also the CDU and the FDP have taken such programs with slight variations. In the realm of house construction and renovation of old houses and apartments they have proposals in their pocket which, exactly as with the 5-DM-demand, make renting or upkeep an even much more costly matter as compared to now. The poorer part of the population would have to occupy itself with nothing but paying off the debts and burdens. If one reproaches the Greens, who anyway is to pay for all of that, they come up with the argument that a social compensation should be created for cases of hardship, that one could make an application somewhere. Crippling traffic systems is on their agenda. This will drive upwards the general level of prices. It has to be investigated, by the way, why other revolutionary organisations spare this ultra-reactionary substance of the Greens or even adapt to it themselves. We, in any case, shall not have our tongue tied about that. The SPD has taken almost all programmatic points of the Greens in an adapted form. What kind of improvement such a coalition after all will bring about? The population wants to get rid of the old government, but as the alternative something is posing which would fleece it even more, even something completely unacceptable on principle. S u c h a n e l e c t i o n i s a n e x t o r t i o n. Suppression of important problems In all of the latest discussions it struck how little importance was attached to the question of state debt. No wonder, as all of the parties are closely involved. Contrary to the former promises by the CDU/CSU and the FDP state debt has grown into gigantic dimensions during their term. In view of the SPD now playing the role of the social prosecutor because of the government's outrages one has, however, to remind that it was the SPD which during the government of chancellor Schmidt 1974-1982 started the horrendous state indebtedness. The CDU during the time from 1982 - 1989 only slightly diminished state debt. For its present dimension of at least 2,5 trillion DM the German unification cannot serve as the predominant justification because the government has wasted enormous tax yields giving them to rich people and destroyed industry on a large scale which definitely could still have been modernized, but lay in the way of its Western competitors. The people in the new federal states know this, and therefore they don't want to vote for the CDU again. It is the famous intravenous drip on which the Ex-GDR is dependent, which among others makes up the tremendous tax burden. Everything is being done in order not to let come, as far as possible, into the citizens' view the contradictions inherent to this state's actions, in order to preserve the so-called stability, while the substance of the whole country, of the whole nation is being hollowed out. The citizens of the new federal states by the way not only inherited the support of the old German Federal Republic, but also the state debts, already at the time of 1989 added up to about one thousand billion DM (after already considerable parts of industry had been shifted to abroad). In its time of decay since about 1970 the GDR besides also was an outspoken cheap supplier to West German companies. It was only about 10 years before that there was the threat to West German workers to shift the production to the GDR or to Poland, if they would not keep quiet with their demands. This also is to be concerned regarding the later decay of the GDR's industry. Concerning the PDS, in their program many items are in line with those of the Greens or of the SPD. One cannot realize that there is any conception of improving the people's situation. Regarding their main line this party really offers its services to these parties and tries to present itself as a "model pupil" of the German constitution. Only by stemming from the east it cannot be proved that it is really able to perform the interests of people's majority there. If SPD and Greens should form the government the PDS will bear part of it when they will give the population a hard time. In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like the so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly deep cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in their election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular election districts). If this is a part of these parties' programs, why don't they openly offer this in their national election propaganda? This affronting program which ties on extremly reactionary traditions ( "Emancipation"? Not at all!), afterwards, as it seems, shall be regarded as legitimated by the election. This is a fraud, which is supposed to be shifted to the population. We are thinking that at present there is no party which even anyhow represents the fundamental interests of the majority in this country or which represents an even anyhow sufficient concept. We are thinking that the task of building such a party is still on the agenda. The convulsions which are to expect after the elections will make it clear to many people, that something new has to be built here. At present you can only refuse to vote in an election of this kind. For the part of the smaller parties, most of them defend positions which are close to those of the Greens, or which make up only one single point, or they defend extreme rightist, historically completely outdated positions and extremely dangerous and fascist positions which may fall back on the whole country. They are unacceptable. The last-named channel the despair about the parliament's parties into a backward and destructive direction. Fighting and de-camouflaging the points where they tie on, thereby fighting their demagogy, will be one of the essential tasks for the immediate future. Gruppe Neue Einheit 25.9.98 Internet-Statement 8/ 98 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ neue einheit Zeitschrift fuer Politik. Oekonomie und Kultur copyright 1998, Verlag NEUE EINHEIT (Inh. H. Dicke) N E W A D D R E S S : Mallinckrodtstr 177, D-44147 Dortmund Germany and D-10973 Berlin, Postfach 309 Phone: +49-231-8820207 resp. +49-30-6937470 e-mail: verlag@neue-einheit.com Internet homepage: http://www.neue-einheit.com *********************************** Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:23:09 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Gruppe Neue Einheit: >In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like the >so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly deep >cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in their >election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular election >districts). Eeek! The homosexuals are in the drawers of the workers parties and the whole moral life of Germany is going down the tubes. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:01:48 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Louis Proyect wrote: >Gruppe Neue Einheit: > >>In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like the >>so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly deep >>cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in their >>election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular election >>districts). > >Eeek! The homosexuals are in the drawers of the workers parties and the >whole moral life of Germany is going down the tubes. Wait a minute, I didn't read this the first time because it looked cultish. What's this all about? Who's Neue Einheit? What cave have they been dwelling in? Doug ***************************************** Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:55:58 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany >Wait a minute, I didn't read this the first time because it looked cultish. >What's this all about? Who's Neue Einheit? What cave have they been >dwelling in? > >Doug They have been embroiled with Adolfo over the PCP franchise. Rolf Martens was a member, but I think they expelled him. They are gung-ho nuclear. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:18:57 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Initially I wasn't going to respond to this, but then I saw some of the statements made. Let me make a few points. The indignation shown by Gruppe Neue Einheit against the SPD and Greens is quite legitimate and understandable. In my opinion, Schröder's "Third Path" is the same as Blair's and Jospin's -- the path from bourgeois workers' party to the new face of bourgeois liberalism. And the Greens never stopped being a bourgeois party. So is it no surprise that a SPD/Green coalition would enact anti- working-class measures? No. Absolutely not. But what strikes me the most about GNE's statement is the sheer moralism of the statement. It more resembles a repentant sinner's diatribe than a Marxist analysis. For example, Krixel@aol.com, on behalf of NEUE EINHEIT, posted: > But Kohl's government after all can point to what would result from > the SPD's policy, what would result, for example, from the ecological > programs in connection with the Greens, and that both these parties > are not interested at all in real lowering of taxes. There is no > indication at all that under the SPD anything in this respect would > improve, on the contrary: if you look at the "ecological demands" of > the SPD and the Greens it becomes clear that in the background there > are lurking bestial unsocial demands which economically come up to > total impoverishment of the less well-off population, further > desindustrialization, and which by their consequences must lead to > politically going backward and depriving the population of its rights. Sheer moralism! Maybe its a translation problem, but it sounds like GNE is running more on emotion than science. And what is all this about "the population" and "the citizens"? These terms are unscientific and non-Marxist. Marxists define their politics on a class basis, not the nameless, faceless, CLASSLESS "people". After all, aren't bosses "people" too? > It has to be investigated, by the way, why other revolutionary > organisations spare this ultra-reactionary substance of the Greens or > even adapt to it themselves. We, in any case, shall not have our > tongue tied about that. Opportunism. That's why the so-called "revolutionary organizations" adapt to the bourgeois politics of the Greens. However, the GNE also adapts to the bosses' ideology -- in a more grotesque form (see below). > In the drawers of these parties (SPD, Greens) there are also laws like > the so called "emancipation of homo-sexuals" which mean an utterly > deep cut in the whole moral life but which are of no importance in > their election propaganda (with the exeption of very particular > election districts). If this is a part of these parties' programs, why > don't they openly offer this in their national election propaganda? > This affronting program which ties on extremly reactionary traditions > ("Emancipation"? Not at all!), afterwards, as it seems, shall be > regarded as legitimated by the election. This is a fraud, which is > supposed to be shifted to the population. Equal rights for oppressed people, in this case homosexuals, is "of no importance"?! It would "mean an utterly deep cut in the whole moral life" of Germany?! This is reactionary, economistic garbage. I wonder if this is an across-the-board opinion. After all, nowhere in this statement, from what I can see, is the immigrant worker issue addressed. Maybe they are also "of no importance" to the GNE? Marxists have always stood for the rights of all oppressed people, and German Marxism has always had a proud history of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois state. One of the first social laws enacted by the Bolsheviks in 1918 was the decriminalization of homosexuality. These laws stayed on the books until the 1930s, when Stalin re-criminalized gays. And again, what is the deal about the "whole moral life" of Germany? This sounds like the ultra-Right in the U.S. and their "family values" crap. It leads me to ask: What is GNE's position on Paragraph 218? Do they see this as a vital struggle, or would the legalization of abortion "mean an utterly deep cut in the whole moral life" of Germany? Finally, not once in this piece does GNE clearly talk about a way forward. The closest they get is saying that they are "discussing the question." If they have to ask, then they dont have an answer. And GNE seems to have no answers for the working class of Germany. Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** From: weklu@mail.skylink.de To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 01:36:58 +0100 Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Some first comments to Martin Schreader: > > Marxists have always stood for the rights of all oppressed > people, ... What should one say about this? It´s nonsense. Did you ever hear of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the cardinal point of Marxism? Marxism, in the interest of the liberation of the proletariat and of defending revolution stands for the suppression of the reactionary and former ruling classes. They will be oppressed to save the revolution. Should Marxists then stand for the rights of these oppressed peoples? Or what about fascists? Should Marxists fight them or should they stand for their rights? I think it´s clear. It has nothing to do with Marxism to demand the liberation of a l l oppressed social minorities regardless of the social and cultural content of such a liberation. > ..and German Marxism has always had a proud history > of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois > state. I cannot remember any comment of Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, Luxemburg or Thaelmann in this sense. But I can remember Engels who damned the Greek because of their boy-love in his work "The Origin...". Could you give the proof of your assertion? > One of the first social laws enacted by the > Bolsheviks in 1918 was the decriminalization of > homosexuality. These laws stayed on the books until the > 1930s, when Stalin re-criminalized gays. The Bolsheviks canceled the sexuality laws of tsarism. But did they say that homosexuality is an equal form of sexualitiy like the "Greens" and the SPD are saying today? Did they propagate homosexuality as they are doing? I´ve never heard anything like that and cannot imagine. Are you able to name and quote the laws you are referring to? weklu ***************************************** Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 20:59:52 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Weklu wrote: >Or what about fascists? Should Marxists fight them or should they >stand for their rights? German fascists in the past thought that homosexuals, along with Jews, communists, 'new women,' etc., were morally rotten, sent them to concentration camps, and murdered them. Our own contemporary fascists everywhere also seem to hate homosexuals. (Some things never change.) Weklu + Neve Einheit are doing a great job furthering a fascist cause. Yoshie ***************************************** Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 22:38:45 -0400 From: Martin Schreader Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany weklu@mail.skylink.de wrote: > > Some first comments to Martin Schreader: > > > > > Marxists have always stood for the rights of all oppressed > > people, ... > > What should one say about this? It´s nonsense. > Did you ever hear of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the > cardinal point of Marxism? Marxism, in the interest of the > liberation of the proletariat and of defending revolution stands > for the suppression of the reactionary and former ruling classes. > They will be oppressed to save the revolution. Should Marxists then > stand for the rights of these oppressed peoples? > Lenin liked to say that when debates using the *reducto ad adsurbum* method, they have lost the argument. And Lenin is once again proven correct. Ground control to Major Tom! I'm talking about the rights of oppressed people under capitalism! Heeellllllooo! The fact that you have to pursue this angle of argument proves your reactionary character and counterrevolutionary political program. > Or what about fascists? Should Marxists fight them or should they > stand for their rights? > I think it´s clear. It has nothing to do with Marxism to demand the > liberation of a l l oppressed social minorities regardless of the > social and cultural content of such a liberation. > This is too stupid to be believeable! Hey, "comrade", when the hell have you ever organized an antifascist demonstration? I'll bet never. You're Gruppe Neue Einheit is probably like most "r-r-r-revolutionary" groups -- a clot of middle-class intellectuals that like to play "reds". But, when someone scratches the surface, the most reactionary stench billows out. In my last post, I said that GNE's moralism was bourgeois ideology. Now we know that the influence of bourgeois ideology isn't limited to simple expressions. Lenin, in What Is To Be Done?, referred to the revolutionary party as the "tribune of the people". Apparently, GNE sees an asterisk here. The party is a "tribune of the people" so long as "the people" are white (or, in the case of Germany, Aryan), male and heterosexual. > > ..and German Marxism has always had a proud history > > of defending homosexuals against attacks by the bourgeois > > state. > > I cannot remember any comment of Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, > Luxemburg or Thaelmann in this sense. But I can remember > Engels who > damned the Greek because of their boy-love in his work "The > Origin...". Could you give the proof of your assertion? > Two words: Oscar Wilde. > > One of the first social laws enacted by the > > Bolsheviks in 1918 was the decriminalization of > > homosexuality. These laws stayed on the books until the > > 1930s, when Stalin re-criminalized gays. > > The Bolsheviks canceled the sexuality laws of tsarism. But did > they say that homosexuality is an equal form of sexualitiy like the > "Greens" and the SPD are saying today? Did they propagate > homosexuality as they are doing? I´ve never heard anything like > that and cannot imagine. Are you able to name and quote the laws > you are referring to? > If I had the book in front of me, I would. But then, I'd be depriving you of an opportunity to learn something for yourself. Try Thorstad's book, "History of the Early Homosexual Rights Movement", which has a chapter on gay-rights legislation in pre-Stalin Soviet Russia. Regardless, the fact that you cannot (will not) progress politically on the question of gay rights exposes you and your organization as anti-working class and counterrevolutionary. > weklu > > For real Marxism, not moralism or bigotry in a "Marxist" guise! Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:41:32 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Yoshie wrote: > German fascists in the past thought that homosexuals, along with Jews, > communists, 'new women,' etc., were morally rotten, sent them to > concentration camps, and murdered them. What do you want to prove herewith? The German Nazis persecuted first of all the communist movement, but also a lot of other social or religious or political groups of quite different character, and they persecuted them for quite different reasons. For example, they persecuted the religious sect „Jehovah’s witnesses“ which preaches absolute political abstinence and in this way fanatically tries to preserve the existing imperialist- fascist regimes. Only because of secondary dissens -refusal to serve in the army - they eventually clashed with the Nazis and came under prosecution. It is therefore not possible to argue that prosecution by the Nazis automatically proves the cause persecuted to be a legitimate one. As it is well-known, for example, that homosexuality played an important role in the inner structures of the Nazis (as it frequently does in ultrareactionary secret leagues), one must ask oneself which tactical purposes the occasional official anti-homosexuality-propaganda served with the Nazis. Then Yoshie writes: > Our own contemporary fascists everywhere also seem to hate homsexuals . >(Some things never change.) > Weklu + Neue Einheit are doing a great job furthering a fascist cause. >Yoshie Today’s imperialists and real fascists look quite different from the German Nazis. Today it is the imperialist system of the West, it is the international financial oligarchy that supresses, starves, torments and kills hundreds of millions of people in the whole world, under the slogans of free capital movement, democracy and human rights, whereas groups openly posing as fascists today are but a marginal phenomenon, anyway totally dependent on the imperialist states and their bourgeoisie, and functioning, with their kind of „opposition“, within the frame of these states. And this „democratic“, liberal system of today, as everybody can see, is not „anti-gay“ at all, on the contrary. One should spend some thinking on obvious phenomena, for example: The media which are under the control of the Western imperialist system and frentically do its propaganda all day long, are very much „pro-gay“. The same TV programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti- gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural, most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards. At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is intensified even more. One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in the metropoles of international finance, like NY and London? How can you accuse people who oppose this modern imperialism and fascism, and try to throw some light on its socio-cultural fabric, to which homosexuality is part and parcel, to „further a fascist cause“? Has there ever been, from the part of the propagators of „gay liberation“, an essential contribution to the struggle against imperialism? It is enigmatic to me why such propagators, who themselves are not one percent supporters of revolutionary struggle against imperialism, should be supported by the revolutionary left and, for example, their cause put on a par with the cause of hundreds of thousands of German and European communists who gave their lives in the struggle against German imperialism. Your posting makes me sick. ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:14:13 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Krixel@aol.com wrote: > > Yoshie wrote: > > > > German fascists in the past thought that homosexuals, along with Jews, > > communists, 'new women,' etc., were morally rotten, sent them to > > concentration camps, and murdered them. > > > What do you want to prove herewith? The German Nazis persecuted > first of all the communist movement, but also a lot of other social or > religious or political groups of quite different character, and they > persecuted them for quite different reasons. For example, they persecuted > the religious sect „Jehovah’s witnesses“ which preaches absolute political > abstinence and in this way fanatically tries to preserve the existing > imperialist- fascist regimes. Only because of secondary dissens -refusal to > serve in the army - they eventually clashed with the Nazis and came > under prosecution. It is therefore not possible to argue that prosecution > by the Nazis automatically proves the cause persecuted to be a legitimate > one. As it is well-known, for example, that homosexuality played an > important role in the inner structures of the Nazis (as it frequently does in > ultrareactionary secret leagues), one must ask oneself which tactical > purposes the occasional official anti-homosexuality-propaganda served > with the Nazis. > > Then Yoshie writes: > > Our own contemporary fascists everywhere also seem to hate homsexuals . > >(Some things never change.) > > Weklu + Neue Einheit are doing a great job furthering a fascist cause. > > >Yoshie > > Today’s imperialists and real fascists look quite different from the > German Nazis. Today it is the imperialist system of the West, it is the > international financial oligarchy that supresses, starves, torments and kills > hundreds of millions of people in the whole world, under the slogans of > free capital movement, democracy and human rights, whereas groups > openly posing as fascists today are but a marginal phenomenon, anyway > totally dependent on the imperialist states and their bourgeoisie, and > functioning, with their kind of „opposition“, within the frame of these > states. And this „democratic“, liberal system of today, as everybody can > see, is not „anti-gay“ at all, on the contrary. One should spend some > thinking on obvious phenomena, for example: The media which are under > the control of the Western imperialist system and frentically do its > propaganda all day long, are very much „pro-gay“. The same TV > programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will > triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti- > gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural, > most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality > are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards. > At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is > intensified even more. > One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in the > metropoles of international finance, like NY and London? > > How can you accuse people who oppose this modern imperialism and > fascism, and try to throw some light on its socio-cultural fabric, to which > homosexuality is part and parcel, to „further a fascist cause“? > > Has there ever been, from the part of the propagators of „gay liberation“, > an essential contribution to the struggle against imperialism? It is > enigmatic to me why such propagators, who themselves are not one > percent supporters of revolutionary struggle against imperialism, should > be supported by the revolutionary left and, for example, their cause put > on a par with the cause of hundreds of thousands of German and > European communists who gave their lives in the struggle against > German imperialism. Your posting makes me sick. > > Krixel I have some questions for you. Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these questions must be answered. Question #2. What homosexuals played an "important role in the inner structures of the Nazis"? I have heard this before. To whom are you referring? Klo ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 23:45:20 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > Klo asks: > >Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people > >born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural? > >Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In > >other words, from whence comes it? > >Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these > >questions must be answered. > > I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are > people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or > unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? > In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue > on the world scene, these questions must be answered. > > Yoshie > > My reply, Your effort to appear witty is inane in light of the fact that I am unaware of any controversy or disagreement among the mass of humanity with respect to your query. Perhaps you know of scholarship or forces to the contrary. While we are at it, since you have seen fit to step into the picture I will direct my questions to you as well. I await your reply. Klo ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 19:57:38 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Krixel@aol.com wrote: > > How can you accuse people who oppose this modern imperialism and > fascism, and try to throw some light on its socio-cultural fabric, to > which homosexuality is part and parcel, to „further a fascist cause“? > > Has there ever been, from the part of the propagators of „gay > liberation“, an essential contribution to the struggle against > imperialism? It is enigmatic to me why such propagators, who > themselves are not one percent supporters of revolutionary struggle > against imperialism, should be supported by the revolutionary left > and, for example, their cause put on a par with the cause of hundreds > of thousands of German and European communists who gave their lives in > the struggle against German imperialism. Your posting makes me sick. > Yoshie; There is no sense in debating this counterrevolutionary rabble. The insurgent working class -- gay and straight -- will sweep these scum away like they will the Social-Democrats and bourgeois parties. His argument that there were gays within the ranks of the Nazis is a common refrain heard from the native fascist movement in the U.S., which likes to distance itself from its mentors. GNE's complete ignorance of the gay rights movement proves -- again! -- their lack of connection with the working class. In the U.S., for example, the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay-rights organizations, was organized by gay and lesbian socialists and Communists, including members of the Communist Party. The Gay Liberation Front and those grouped around the magazine "Red Butterfly" looked to various shades of Marxism for political guidance. Many of the initial leaders of the gay rights movement were subjective communists. And, if memory serves, Workers World Party was very active in the early gay liberation movement. Louis can give better details than I can at the moment. For those of us Marxists who fight for lesbian/gay liberation, we see homosexuality as an objective challenge to the bourgeois nuclear family. While being gay does not mean one is "more revolutionary", the act of coming out is an expression of a rejection of one area of bourgeois social norms -- the same bourgeois social norms we as communists are supposed to fight. GNE has clearly proven it is a counterrevolutionary organization which seeks to preserve the norms of bourgeois society. And that is only a short step toward an organization preserving the norms of bourgeois economy and the bourgeois state. As a gay worker-Bolshevik, I say: FUCK YOU! Your bourgeois politics make me sick. Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** From: Les Schaffer Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:08:56 -0400 (EDT) To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Krixel@aol.com spaketh thusly: >> One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in >> the metropoles of international finance, like NY and London? somebody pinch me. i think i am stuck in a dream. wait, this has got to be troll bait, right? les ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:36:19 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany No, Les, unfortunately this is not a dream or a troll bait. The Gruppe Neue Einheit claims to be a "communist" organization. Martin Les Schaffer wrote: > > Krixel@aol.com spaketh thusly: > >> One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in > >> the metropoles of international finance, like NY and London? > > somebody pinch me. i think i am stuck in a dream. > > wait, this has got to be troll bait, right? > > les > > -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:46:56 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany kloDMcKinsey wrote: > > Krixel > > I have some questions for you. > > Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people > born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or > unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy > individual? In other words, from whence comes it? > Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these > questions must be answered. > Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic. Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of religion). In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the religious. In the same light, communists fight for the democratic rights of gays and lesbians. But at the same time, we need to recognize that gays suffer oppression and inequality due to the fact they are gay. Thus, communists fight for a social equality (as opposed to a bourgeois equality) of gays and lesbians. > Question #2. What homosexuals played an "important role in the inner > structures of the Nazis"? I have heard this before. To whom are you > referring? > There are rumors that Goering was a homosexual. So what? As if that spared the hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians sent to concentration camps? Where do you think that the pink triangle (for gay men, black triangle for lesbians) comes from? This "symbol" was foisted on gays by the Nazis, similar the yellow "Star of David" Jewish people had to wear. Gays still wear the pink triangle as an expression of the fact that we are still persecuted and treated as "undesireables" and second-class citizens under capitalism. > Klo > > Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:26:23 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Klo asks: >Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people >born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural? >Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In >other words, from whence comes it? >Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these >questions must be answered. I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these questions must be answered. Yoshie ***************************************** From: "Walid Saba" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:58:16 -0400 >Klo asks: >>Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people >>born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or unnatural? >>Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? In >>other words, from whence comes it? >>Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these >>questions must be answered. > >I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are >people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or >unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? >In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue >on the world scene, these questions must be answered. > >Yoshie sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning don't you think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get it. ***************************************** From: "Walid Saba" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:05:54 -0400 >Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic. >Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight >to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of >religion). In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the >religious. > Is there some other communism that I have not heard about? Which communism defends the "individual's right to practice religion" ??? Communism advocates the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat, meaning that what the working people will dictate, for the good of the overwhelming majority of the masses, what is and what is not allowed to fester. Religion, as the saying goes, is the Opium of the masses, and should be fought, for the most part, as an institution that perpetuates the elite upper class. All religions are based on the assumption that there are nobels and commoners, classes, etc. They are to be CRUSHED. What individual freedom you speak of? A new Marxism??? What about individual freedom to preach racism? Facism? (which religions are both, actually!) It seems that the unrelenting propaganda of the imperialist camp has gotten to some of us.... with things like "individual freedom" and the like. The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL. ***************************************** Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:23:54 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walid replies: >>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are >>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or >>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? >>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue >>on the world scene, these questions must be answered. >> >>Yoshie > >sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human >nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning don't you >think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get it. While Engels was no defender of the rights of homosexuals--in his time the terms hemosexual and heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made some homophobic comments as well as had heterosexist assumptions, he wasn't such a simpleton as to believe that sexuality was totally _ahistorical_. For instance, he wrote: Thus the history of the family in primitive times consists in the progressive narrowing of the circle, originally embracing the whole tribe, within which the two sexes have a common conjugal relation. The continuous exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and more remote relatives, and at last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making any kind of group marriage practically impossible. Finally, there remains only the single, still loosely linked pair, the molecule with whose dissolution marriage itself ceases. This in itself shows what a small part individual sex-love, in the modern sense of the word, played in the rise of monogamy. (emphasis mine) In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our modern parlance sexuality) is a historical phenomenon--not a product of 'human nature' used in a static sense. Yoshie ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 23:25:48 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walid Saba wrote: > > Is there some other communism that I have not heard about? Which > communism defends the "individual's right to practice religion" ??? "The Russian Communist Party is guided by the conviction that nothing but the fulfilment of purposiveness and full awareness in all the social and economic activities of the masses can lead to the complete diappearance of religious prejudices. The party endeavours to secure the complete disappearance of religious prejudices. The party endeavours to to secure the complete break-up of the union between the exploiting classes and the organizations for religious propaganda, thus cooperating in the actual deliverance of the working masses from religious prejudices, and organizing the most extensive propaganda of scientific enlightenment and anti-religious conceptions. While doing this, we must carefully avoid anything that can wound the feelings of believers, for such a method can only lead to the strengthening of religious fanaticism." ("Religion," Programme of the Communist Party of Russia, adopted at the Eighth Party Congress, held 18 to 23 March 1919) and "At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired to be 'more left' or 'more revolutionary' than the Social- Democrats to introduce into the programme of the workers' party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. Commenting in 1874 on the famous manifesto of the Blanquist fugitive Communards who were living in exile in London, Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out. Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social *practice*, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers' party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering. And in 1877, too, in his Anti-Dühring, while ruthlessly attacking the slightest concessions made by Dühring the philosopher to idealism and religion, Engels no less resolutely condemns Dühring's pseudo-revolutionary idea that religion should he prohibited in socialist society. To declare such a war on religion, Engels says, is to 'out-Bismarck Bismarck', i.e., to repeat the folly of Bismarck's struggle against the clericals (the notorious 'Struggle for Culture', *Kulturkampf*, i.e., the struggle Bismarck waged in the 1870s against the German Catholic party, the 'Centre' party, by means of a police persecution of Catholicism). By this struggle Bismarck only *stimulated* the militant clericalism of the Catholics, and only injured the work of real culture, because he gave prominence to religious divisions rather than political divisions, and diverted the attention of some sections of the working class and of the other democratic elements away from the urgent tasks of the class and revolutionary struggle to the most superficial and false bourgeois anti-clericalism. Accusing the would-be ultra-revolutionary Dühring of wanting to repeat Bismarck's folly in another form, Engels insisted that the workers' party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion. This view has become part of the very essence of German Social-Democracy, which, for example, advocated freedom for the Jesuits, their admission into Germany, and the complete abandonment of police methods of combating any particular religion. 'Religion is a private matter': this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891) summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy. "These tactics have by now become a matter of routine; they have managed to give rise to a new distortion of Marxism in the opposite direction, in the direction of opportunism. This point in the Erfurt Programme has come to be interpreted as meaning that we Social-Democrats, our Party, *consider* religion to be a private matter, that religion is a private matter for us as Social-Democrats, for us as a party. Without entering into a direct controversy with this opportunist view, Engels in the nineties deemed it necessary to oppose it resolutely in a positive, and not a polemical form. To wit: Engels did this in the form of a statement, which he deliberately underlined, that Social-Democrats regard religion as a private matter *in relation* to the *state*, but not in relation to themselves, not in relation to Marxism, and not in relation to the workers' party. "Such is the external history of the utterances of Marx and Engels on the question of religion. To people with a slapdash attitude towards Marxism, to people who cannot or will not think, this history is a skein of meaningless Marxist contradictions and waverings, a hodge-podge of 'consistent' atheism and 'sops' to religion, 'unprincipled' wavering between a r-r-revolutionary war on God and a cowardly desire to 'play up to' religious workers, a fear of scaring them away, etc., etc. The literature of the anarchist phrase-mongers contains plenty of attacks on Marxism in this vein." (V.I. Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, Collected Works Vol. 15, p. 402-413) So, Walid, in answer to your question, that "some other communism" is genuine Leninism -- genuine Bolshevism (communism) -- as opposed the petty-bourgeois "communism" you practice. Martin P.S.: Don't mess with the Director of the Lenin Archive. ;-) -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** From: bautiste@uswest.net Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:35:52 -0600 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany >From what I understand, there are no indigenous societies in which >homesxuality is a norm. If one extrapolates purely on the grounds that > indigenous societies somehow represent a social form closer to nature, >and more industrialized societies as more _artificial_, then there might be >something to the notion that homosexuality is not natural. But then, who >accepts the assumption that indigenous societies are _closer_ to nature? >Anyway, this is supposed to be an anthropological fact, i.e., that no indigenous >societies have norms wherein homosexuals live and express their sexual preference >for members of the same sex. The implication being that it is only in >more _urbanized_ and more rationalized societies that homesexuality becomes >an option. This seems to be the conclusion of early Greek thinkers. I have not >studied _all_ the indigenous societies of the world, so I accept as true, until >proven otherwise, this fact, since the person who said is a world-renowned >expert in indigenous cultures. If anyone would know, he would. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > Walid replies: > >>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? Are > >>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or > >>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy individual? > >>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address this issue > >>on the world scene, these questions must be answered. > >> > >>Yoshie > > > >sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human > >nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning don't you > >think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get it. > > While Engels was no defender of the rights of homosexuals--in his time the terms >hemosexual and heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made some homophobic >comments as well as had heterosexist assumptions, he wasn't such a simpleton >as to believe that sexuality was totally _ahistorical_. For instance, he wrote: > > Thus the history of the family in primitive times consists in the progressive narrowing >of the circle, originally embracing the whole tribe, within which the two sexes have a >common conjugal relation. The continuous exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and >more remote relatives, and at last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making any kind >of group marriage practically impossible. Finally, there remains only the single, still loosely >linked pair, the molecule with whose dissolution marriage itself ceases. This in itself shows >what a small part individual sex-love, in the modern sense of the word, played in the rise of >monogamy. (emphasis mine) > > In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our modern parlance sexuality) is a historical >phenomenon--not a product of 'human nature' used in a static sense. > > Yoshie -- http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm ***************************************** Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:52:08 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walida writes: >The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL. On the other hand, Marx and Engels proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto: In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. (emphasis mine) Yoshie ***************************************** Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 23:32:51 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany More on 'sexuality' historically considered.... Engels wrote: This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. (emphasis added) There have been various historical forms of 'marriages' and reproduction throughout human history. However, their existence had nothing whatsoever to do with the ideological equation of heterosexuality with 'human nature' until very recently (for the last hundred years or so); the dissemination of this ideology on the world-scale is a modern phenomenon, belonging to capitalism proper. One cannot infer forms of love and sexuality from the fact of reproduction and forms of 'marriages,' neither of which requires love and sexuality for their existence. For all his negative remarks upon 'Greek boy-love' + heterosexist assumptions, Engels knew that much about the history of what he called 'sex-love.' Yoshie ***************************************** Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 23:56:19 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: Television (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany) Krixel says this about TV in Germany: >The same TV >programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will >triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti- >gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural, >most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality >are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards. >At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is >intensified even more. If that were the case, how wonderful! Anyway, I would have thought that marxists were to be the VANGUARD for social revolution, not the rear guard tailing the Church. Yoshie ***************************************** From: "Walid Saba" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:08:11 -0400 Martin, I am not just against religion, but I am also gainst Communist religions!!!! You know what I mean here? Well, let me explain: Marx & Co. are not Gods. And not everything Lenin ever said is a universal truth (ie something that is true in all circumstances and for all times...) If that's the marxism you believe in, then we do have 2 communisms here.. Mine is not religion with prophits Marx and Lenin, mine is a sceintific dialectic theory. So some statement that seems a bit tolerent towards religion from Engles does not mean communism should "respect indvidual's religious freedoms". Like I said before, how about other equally rotten ideas? How far do you want to go along this path? >P.S.: Don't mess with the Director of the Lenin Archive. ;-) Could you explain what that might mean, please. ***************************************** Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 00:42:13 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: L-I: The 'Defense of Marriage' Act Krixel on this list claims that unlike fascists (whom K considers to be 'a marginal phenomenon'--maybe K's unaware of the rise of Neo-Nazis in Germany, the 'One Nation' supporters in Austraria, and so forth), today's 'imperialists and real fascists' are 'liberal and democratic' and 'not anti-gay at all.' Why, let us look at the heartland of imperialism--the U.S. Congress. Did they not pass the (idiotically named) 'defense of marriage' act, to exclude gay men and lesbians from the civil recognition of their relationships? In violation of their own bourgeois constitution, that is, negating in this case the 'full faith and credit' clause.... If the bourgeoisie and their politicians were so sanguine in their alleged support for homosexuality as Krixel asserts, they would be promoting 'gay marriages,' instead of prohibiting it. The bourgeois ideology + practice have not, historically speaking, been keen on extending what Marx called the 'Eden of innate rights of man,' the sphere of 'Property, Freedom, Equality, and Bentham' to sex, sexuality, reproduction, and family, probably because the subordination of women within the nuclear family has been very advantageous to capitalism. For women to dispose of our bodies and minds according to our wishes as well as to have access to material resources to become independent of men has not desirable for capitalists. Homophobia and heterosexism have done a great deal of harm to not only confirmed gay men and lesbians but also all women of whatever sexuality. Homophobia has been a mainstay of male chauvinism, in that men who dissent from the hegemonic form of masculinity--male dominance over women--have been called sissy. Compulsory heterosexuality, along with gender inequality in the labor market, ties many women to men (even when men are abusive or uncaring), for it hinders women from pursuing other forms of love and relationships which may prove to be much more fulfilling. Heterosexuality should be (and will be) merely a matter of individual preference, not an institution that comes with punishment for those who do not choose it. Yoshie ***************************************** Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:15:37 -0500 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Yoshie Furuhashi Subject: L-I: Why Are Many Men--Even Some Marxists--So Homophobic? What makes many men homophobic? What are they afraid of? What makes them compulsively insist on heterosex as 'natural,' 'normal,' blah, blah, blah? That's an interesting question. They may secretly fear that if they stopped saying that hetero is 'natural' + 'normal,' most of us would stop being 'straight'! Perhaps they think that if women could freely become lesbians with no social sanction, nobody would have sex with them? Or is it the case that they fear becoming the object--rather than the subject--of sexuality as women have historically been, since lots of men still (at this day and age) think of gay men as 'less than masculine'? Are they afraid of getting fucked in the ass, which they probably think of as the same as being treated--God forbid--'like women'? Can such fearful men--homophobic men--make any revolution? Yoshie ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: L-I: Re: The 'Defense of Marriage' Act Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 16:53:19 +1000 >the nuclear family has been very advantageous to capitalism. Yes but don't non-nuclear families tend to result in more to gender inequality? ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 09:49:11 +0100 From: Mark Jones To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: LIST MATTERS Martin, cut the cussing. Mark Martin Schreader wrote: > > > As a gay worker-Bolshevik, I say: FUCK YOU! ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:17:23 +0100 From: Mark Jones To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walid Saba wrote: > sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human > nature, Walid, care to give us your definition of "human nature"? Mark http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:47:57 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Mark Jones wrote: > > Walid Saba wrote: > > > sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human > > nature, > > Walid, care to give us your definition of "human nature"? > > Mark That's the same question I asked in my book THE RELEVANCE OF MARXISM found at: http://www.infinet.com/~klomckin Good question. However, to make his point Walid should have used more all-encompassing terminology such as saying: isn't it endemic to all animal life appropriately equipped physically. Klo > > http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm > > -- The Best to you, ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 10:49:53 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: LIST MATTERS Mark Jones wrote: > > Martin, cut the cussing. > > Mark Good comment Mark. Keep it up. We need a standard like that. Klo > > Martin Schreader wrote: > > > > > > > As a gay worker-Bolshevik, I say: FUCK YOU! > > ***************************************** From: "Walid Saba" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 06:01:37 -0400 Mark Jones wrote: >> sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be the human >> nature, >Walid, care to give us your definition of "human nature"? Mark, I am sure you knew that the intent there was to say "heterosexuality has to be the natural sexual orientation of humans..." since otherwise there are no humans in nature. Is that ok now, or as I fear, not quite? ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 11:17:34 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Martin Schreader wrote: > > kloDMcKinsey wrote: > > > > Krixel > > > > I have some questions for you. > > > > Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people > > born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or > > unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy > > individual? In other words, from whence comes it? > > Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these > > questions must be answered. > > > > Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic. My reply, Can't agree. If it is natural that is one thing, but if it an illness or unnatural, then it has no more right to protection or support than pedophilia, sado-masochism and other sicknesses. > Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight > to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of > religion). My reply, Practice, yes. Spread, propagandize, or indoctrinate, no. If you want a radio or TV show to spread religion, forget it. Moreover, there is to be full freedom to spread anti-religious literature and ideas. In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the > religious. My reply, Yes and no based upon the criteria I just outlined. > > In the same light, communists fight for the democratic rights of gays > and lesbians. My reply, Not until those fundamental questions I asked previously are answered. But at the same time, we need to recognize that gays > suffer oppression and inequality due to the fact they are gay. My reply, That's just it. Should they or should they not. I await a definitive answer to my fundamental question. Thus, > communists fight for a social equality (as opposed to a bourgeois > equality) of gays and lesbians. My reply, Same response. > > > Question #2. What homosexuals played an "important role in the inner > > structures of the Nazis"? I have heard this before. To whom are you > > referring? > > > > There are rumors that Goering was a homosexual. My reply, So now we are going by rumors. I loathe Goering but I am not going to accept your assertion simply because you heard some kind of a rumor. So what? As if that > spared the hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians sent to > concentration camps? Where do you think that the pink triangle (for gay > men, black triangle for lesbians) comes from? This "symbol" was foisted > on gays by the Nazis, similar the yellow "Star of David" Jewish people > had to wear. > > Gays still wear the pink triangle as an expression of the fact that we > are still persecuted and treated as "undesireables" and second-class > citizens under capitalism. > > > Klo My reply, Since you appear to be gay based upon your comments, Martin, would you answer my original questions. I am having trouble finding someone willing to reply. Klo > > > > > > Martin > -- > Martin Schreader > Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive > http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ > > Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ > > -- > "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize > yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, > even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." > (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) > > ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 11:49:33 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walid Saba wrote: > > >Klo, it doesn't really matter if sexuality is learned or genetic. > >Communists defend the individual's right to practice religion, and fight > >to keep the state out of it (neither establishment nor persecution of > >religion). In other words, we fight for the democratic rights of the > >religious. > > > > Is there some other communism that I have not heard about? Which > communism defends the "individual's right to practice religion" ??? My reply, Let's use the more accurate term "socialism," not communism. Now to address the specific question. Socialism does defend the right of an individual to practice his or her religion but there is no right to spread it to others via the media etc. As long as you keep it to yourself we can proceed. > Communism advocates the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat, My reply, Not true. Your terminology is inaccurate. You are talking about socialism, not communism. The state does not exist under communism. I would respectfully request that you read my book. meaning > that what the working people will dictate, for the good of the overwhelming > majority of the masses, what is and what is not allowed to fester. Religion, > as the saying goes, is the Opium of the masses, and should be fought, > for the most part, as an institution that perpetuates the elite upper > class. My reply, Now you are correct. All religions are based on the assumption that there are nobels > and commoners, classes, etc. They are to be CRUSHED. My reply, I would prefer to say: "Rooted out over time." Exuberant followers could get the wrong idea with your terminology. What individual > freedom you speak of? A new Marxism??? What about individual freedom > to preach racism? Facism? (which religions are both, actually!) My reply, Good point. > > It seems that the unrelenting propaganda of the imperialist camp has gotten > to some of us.... with things like "individual freedom" and the like. > > The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL. > > My reply, Not a good slogan. I would say: THE COLLECTIVE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. Only through the collective can the individual become a fully developed individual and receive maximum benefits. As one develops and improves so does the other and vice versa. The capitalist slogan is: NO COLLECTIVE, ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL which, in reality, benefits less than 10% of the population because it is only members of that group that have sufficient means of PD and Ex to satisfy their wants and needs and fully develop. Klo ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 11:57:03 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > Walid replies: > >>I got questions also. Is heterosexuality learned or is it genetic? > Are > >>people born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or > >>unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy > individual? > >>In other words, from whence comes it? Before Marxism can address > this issue > >>on the world scene, these questions must be answered. > >> > >>Yoshie > > > >sorry for being somewhat silly here, but heterosexuality has to be > the human > >nature, otherwise, there are no humans. Simple logical reasoning > don't you > >think. Its so simple, actually, that even five year olds would get > it. > > While Engels was no defender of the rights of homosexuals--in his time > the terms hemosexual and heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made > some homophobic comments as well as had heterosexist assumptions, he > wasn't such a simpleton as to believe that sexuality was totally > _ahistorical_. For instance, he wrote: > > Thus the history of the family in primitive times consists in the > progressive narrowing of the circle, originally embracing the whole > tribe, within which the two sexes have a common conjugal relation. The > continuous exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and more remote > relatives, and at last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making > any kind of group marriage practically impossible. Finally, there > remains only the single, still loosely linked pair, the molecule with > whose dissolution marriage itself ceases. This in itself shows what a > small part individual sex-love, in the modern sense of the word, > played in the rise of monogamy. (emphasis mine) > > In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our modern parlance > sexuality) is a historical phenomenon--not a product of 'human nature' > used in a static sense. > > Yoshie My reply, What are you contending Engels is saying? Your point is unclear. Are you saying Engels is contending that sex-love came on the scene at a particular point in history? And what is human nature? Where does Engels validate its reality? And what do you mean by a "static sense?" Klo ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:27:26 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > More on 'sexuality' historically considered.... > > Engels wrote: > > This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among > the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was > not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had > nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of > convenience. (emphasis added) > > There have been various historical forms of 'marriages' and > reproduction throughout human history. However, their existence had > nothing whatsoever to do with the ideological equation of > heterosexuality with 'human nature' until very recently (for the last > hundred years or so); the dissemination of this ideology on the > world-scale is a modern phenomenon, belonging to capitalism proper. > One cannot infer forms of love and sexuality from the fact of > reproduction and forms of 'marriages,' neither of which requires love > and sexuality for their existence. For all his negative remarks upon > 'Greek boy-love' + heterosexist assumptions, Engels knew that much > about the history of what he called 'sex-love.' > > Yoshie My reply, Yoshie. You are switching the subject. We are not talking about the development of marriage and sex-love. We are talking about whether or not homosexuality is natural or not. Klo -- The Best to you, ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:29:42 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: Television (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany) Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > Krixel says this about TV in Germany: > >The same TV > >programs which tell us that capitalism has triumphed ultimately and will > >triumph forever, all day long try to educate the people not to be „anti- > >gay“, on the contrary. Homosexuality is depicted as the most natural, > >most socially desired phenomenon, and those objecting homosexuality > >are portrayed as some completely backward, mostly religious die-hards. > >At least this has gone on in Germany for a lot of years, and it is > >intensified even more. > > If that were the case, how wonderful! > > Anyway, I would have thought that marxists were to be the VANGUARD for > social revolution, not the rear guard tailing the Church. > > Yoshie > > My reply, Before you lead you should make sure of the nature of what you are leading. And that is what I am trying to determine. Klo ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 21:51:00 +1000 Walid: >Mark, I am sure you knew that the intent there was to say >"heterosexuality has to be the natural sexual orientation >of humans..." since otherwise there are no humans in >nature. Is that ok now, or as I fear, not quite? Actually if everyone was heterosexual, the population explosion would be accelerated - possibly putting humanity into some sort of environmental armageddon before we have the scientific power to deal with it. Maybe this is the case even now. If homosexuality was increased from 10% to maybe 20% or 30%, the population would increase at a much slower rate and the world would not need to adopt a one child, or two children policy. That is unless ofcourse homosexuals do not begin adopting children themselves. So Walid, if homosexuals do not affect you or others negatively in anyway, they are perhaps doing the world a favour by just being who they are. If it is good for humanity then it is surely human nature. Both sexualities have there roles to play. I do recall a television documentary that described a species of primate where each individual practiced both homosexuality and heterosexuality. I don't know what that is called, but observations have shown that this primate society is almost completely peaceful. Is this then the nature of this species because it happens? What do you say? Unfortunately, since homosexuality has never really been accepted, there aren't social norms that govern its practice except that homosexuality is bad. Heterosexuality on the other hand has moved from polygamy to monogamy because polygamy is seen as a source of gender inequality and other social problems. So today we have the two party institution we call marriage. There is no real homosexual equivalent - no life long obligation, no restriction to contain the spread of STDs. Prohibiting it was never a solution - it can only make things worse. You can't pretend something is not there. ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:24:32 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany One question for Yoshie and the Director of the (Lenin) Trotsky Internet Archive. What is their opinion of the rights of those who practice incest? For example father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, brother-brother, sister-sister? After all, defending incestuous relationships would be an even more direct attack on the bourgeois family causing it to dissolve, and in corollary, advance the cause of (proletarian) revolution. Would'nt it? Sid ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 08:40:03 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany >One more question: why is homosexuality rampant particularly in the >metropoles of international finance, like NY and London? I am not sure about London, but NY is a headquarters of world Jewry. As is commonly understood, the Jews are sponsors of Bolshevism and homosexuality everywhere they go. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:50:25 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany El 3 Oct 98 a las 8:40, Louis Proyect nos dice(n): > >One more question: why is homosexuality rampant > >particularly in the metropoles of international finance, > >like NY and London? > > I am not sure about London, [snip] > Louis Proyect You'd know better, Lou. Think of Disraeli... ;) Nestor. ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:45:16 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany John Ky wrote: > > Klo: > >Let's use the more accurate term "socialism," not communism. Now to > >address the specific question. Socialism does defend the right of an > >individual to practice his or her religion but there is no right to > >spread it to others via the media etc. As long as you keep it to > >yourself we can proceed. > > Such Irony. Some religions require preaching for practice. To not > preach is to not practice. What do we do then? > > All the best, > > John Ky > > My reply, Whether they call preaching, practice, or vice versa is of no import. The fact is that they will not be allowed to propagandize or proselytize any more than pornographers will be allowed to openly sell their wares. If they deem that a restriction on their religion, then so be it. That's the way it's going to be. Religious or parochial schools, for example, are out of bounds. Even in capitalist countries where religion is actively promoted, many limitations exist. Playing with snakes and drinking deadly things according to Mark 16 have been ruled illegal by the courts. Transfusions are required of Jehovah's Witnesses even though to them that is equivalent to the drinking of blood and contrary to Exodus. Christian Scientists have killed their children because of James 5:14 and prayer overdose. Even the capitalists realize that sooner or later sanity has to come into play. Klo ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:54:25 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate Martin Schreader wrote: > > Charles; > > I understand your concerns, but the NEUE EINHEIT issue has already went > beyond its original frontiers. We are now debating the question of > whether Marxists should fight for gay liberation: Yoshie and I say yes, > Walid and NE say no, and Klo has questions (which I hope I answered). Martin Thanks for accurately stating my position. That often does not happen. You sent me a well-considered reply to this issue off camera and I wish you would post it to the LI because it goes to the meat of the matter. > > This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time. With that I agree. As I commented in > earlier posts, Marxists defend oppressed people under capitalism, and > seek to build a Leninist party that is a "tribune of the people", which > includes gay and lesbian workers. That's the issue and you are begging the question. Should Marxists defend gays and lesbians? Marxists defend oppressed people when they deserve to be defended. The question is whether or not gays and lesbians deserve to be defended. I am still gathering data as to whether or not it is natural. Klo The question of fighting for gay > rights is a central debate for communists, not a distraction. > > Martin > > Charles F. Moreira wrote: > > > > Comrades, > > > > This link http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm provided at > > the bottom of the post by bautiste@uswest.net who wrote:- > > -- > Martin Schreader > Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive > http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ > > Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ > > -- > "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize > yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, > even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." > (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) > > ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:59:10 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany John Ky wrote: > > Klo: > >Yoshie. You are switching the subject. We are not talking > >about the development of marriage and sex-love. We are talking > >about whether or not homosexuality is natural or not. > > A caesarian is not natural but is sometimes required. > > But that doesn't seem to use the definition of the word "natural" > which you use. Exactly what do you mean by natural? > > Since you are balking at the word "natural," then I will rephrase my question. Is homosexuality an illness, a perversion if you will, or is it normal? Are homosexuals in need of mental health treatment or its equivalent? Klo ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 16:45:16 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany João Paulo Monteiro wrote: > > kloDMcKinsey wrote: > > > We are talking about whether or > > not homosexuality is natural or not. > > > > Klo, > > Of course, there are genetic and endocrinological factors that favour > homosexuality. But one cannot say that such and such people were *born* > homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter). So, if this is the only > condition under which you would tolerate homosexuality, I don't think it > occurs at all. > > Homesexuality is a choice. My reply, So you are saying it is a choice. It is not natural; it is a perversion, an illness. Is that correct? It is caused by a very wide reunion and > reciprocal influence of natural and social factors. Now you are saying it is not a choice. It has natural causes. To what social factors are your referring? The result being that > some people find more pleasure and gratification in homosexual relations > than in the heterosexual norm. You are focusing on choice again. The proof that homosexuality is "natural" is > that it exists. Now you are back to "it's natural." Apparently you are saying it is a blend of the two. In that case, would care to give the percentage influence of each? Murder exists too. Is that natural. Rape exists. Is that natural. Over the ages and across many different cultural universes, > a very great number of people have made that choice, sometimes at great > personal risk and against all odds. Now you are back to choice again. > > So the problem is not if homosexuality is "natural" (that is, in your > sense, imposed with irresistible force on some people by natural factors). I disagree. That goes to the essence of the issue. You are flip-flopping and ducking the issue. > The problem is one of knowing if a society should promote or/and enforce a > given pattern of sexual behaviour to its members. No. The problem is one of determining which behaviors are natural and should be accepted and which are not. You are asking a different question: Should society prevent or allow a given pattern of behavior. But until a determination is made as to whether or not that pattern is "normal," society can't act responsibly or intelligently. In a sense, you have the cart before the mule and by muddying the waters you have stymied society from both making a decision and acting. > > The answer is not as simple as some liberal PC optimists would assume. You are not clearing up those muddy waters. No > human society has ever existed without its sexual taboos. Sex is indeed a > public matter. It spills over continuously to questions of social order. > Some societies can permit themselves a certain permissiveness and tolerance > that others can't. The question is: Should homosexuality be a taboo. We are talking about a specific form of sex, not sex in general. > > Can we accept sexual slavery? Incest? Pedophilia? (I believe many > conceivable relations that could fall under all of these cathegories are > indeed acceptable, but social normativity is not about individual cases - > it's about establishing an abstract norm.) So you are saying sexual slavery, incest, and pedophilia are acceptable under certain conditions in this society? Is that correct? > > As regards homosexuality, I am positively sure we can and we should. And what should it be. We are back to square one. > Attempts at depicting homosexuality as bourgeois and decadent are pure > lunacy. The "new man" we are all struggling for can be straight or > gay/lesbian, as (s)he wishes and pertains to his/hers self-fulfillment. Now you are saying it is a matter of choice again. Pinning you down on this issue is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Klo > > João Paulo Monteiro > > ***************************************** Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:10:13 +0800 From: "Charles F. Moreira" To: "leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu" Subject: L-I: Beware of this debate Comrades, This link http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm provided at the bottom of the post by bautiste@uswest.net who wrote:- ======================================================================== Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:35:52 -0600 From: bautiste@uswest.net Reply-To:leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu References: 1 >From what I understand, there are no indigenous societies in which homesxuality is a norm. If one extrapolates purely on the grounds that indigenous societies somehow represent a social form closer to nature, and more industrialized societies as more _artificial_, then there might be something to the notion that homosexuality is not natural. But then, who accepts the assumption that indigenous societies are _closer_ to nature? Anyway, this is supposed to be an anthropological fact, i.e., that no indigenous societies have norms wherein homosexuals live and express their sexual preference for members of the same sex. The implication being that it is only in more _urbanized_ and more rationalized societies that homesexuality becomes an option. This seems to be the conclusion of early Greek thinkers. I have not studied _all_ the indigenous societies of the world, so I accept as true, until proven otherwise, this fact, since the person who said is a world-renowned expert in indigenous cultures. If anyone would know, he would. ======================================================================== I don't know enough about indigenous societies to argue with this guy above but have I gone to the site and consider that it smacks of reformist liberal and in some cases anti-communist, right-wing kind of anti-establishment slant. Furthermore, this person who posted this does not give his name, which is suspiscious. There are many links to articles in Atlantic Monthly and Boston Review. Perhaps our American comrades can tell us what these magazines are. About a month or so ago, I visited an anti-communist site run by what appears to be a neo-nazi, ultra-rightest group in the Niagara Falls area and they were talking about how to counter the growing presence on the Net and use of the Net by Communist organisations. Links there let to publications like New American and I noticed that web pages there are uncompromisingly in the Letter Size format used in North America as opposed to the A4 format used elsewhere. Apart from the fact that it makes reading such pages difficult since one has to scroll left and right, IMHO it reflects a certain parochialism which would be expected of such rightists. Its no big deal really but I thought we should just be aware of this likelihood. This Neus Einheit thing has really stirred up a hornet's nest on the L-I but it might be a distraction. Yours Fraternally Charles ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:34:56 +0000 Subject: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1 There are a number of issues to related to the sexual (hetero, homo, etc) question. There is both a private and a social dimension related to the issue of sex, i.e. a contradiction. 1) Bourgeois liberals and feminists emphasize the sexual freedom mostly w.r.t. to the private sphere (e.g. the right to dispose of their own bodies as they see fit) without analyzing the consequences or results of their prescriptions for a particular society. A part of this protest may arise from a desire to justify one own's particular lifestyle in front of the court of bourgeois and 'respectable' public opinion and call for tolerance towards themselves.This aspect was severely criticized by Lenin. 2) The social consequences of individual human behavior in a particular society at a particular moment of time. For example, should sexual hedonism or incest be promoted? Will it advance the revolutionary movement ot hinder it? Are they signs of freedom or of its opposite? These aspects were very clearly analyzed by Lenin in the talk he had with Clara Zetkin. Since neither Yoshie nor our indignant Director of the Trotsky Archive have provided us with any comprehensive statements on the sexual question from the founders of Marxism, I enclose a few quotes from the interview below (the complete text of the interview is available at http://www.blythe.org/mlm/ in the Feminism section). The defense of people who are being truly persecuted by the capitalist state or society for their sexual lifestyle has to be unconditional in my opinion. However, that does not or should not imply that a particular type of sexual lifestyle has to be actively promoted by the socialists and communists. Here is comrade Lenin. Sid --------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM CLARA ZETKIN'S INTERVIEW OF LENIN: PART 1 (http://www.blythe.org/mlm/) ......... I have heard strange things about that from Russian and German comrades. I must tell you what I mean. I understand that in Hamburg a gifted Communist woman is bringing out a newspaper for prostitutes, and is trying to organise them for the revolutionary struggle. Now Rosa, a true Communist, felt and acted like a human being when she wrote an article in defence of prostitutes who have landed in jail for violating a police regulation concerning their sad trade. They are unfortunate double victims of bourgeois society. Victims, first, of its accursed system of property and, secondly, of its accursed moral hypocrisy. There's no doubt about this. Only a coarse-grained and short-sighted person could forget this. To understand this is one thing, but it is quite another thing _ how shall I put it? _ to organise the prostitutes as a special revolutionary guild contingent and publish a trade union paper for them. Are there really no industrial working women left in Germany who need organising, who need a newspaper, who should be enlisted in your struggle? This is a morbid deviation. It strongly reminds me of the literary vogue which made a sweet madonna out of every prostitute. Its origin was sound too: social sympathy, and indignation against the moral hypocrisy of the honourable bourgeoisie. But the healthy principle underwent bourgeois corrosion and degenerated. The question of prostitution will confront us even in our country with many a difficult problem. Return the prostitute to productive work, find her a place in the social economy _ that is the thing to do. But the present state of our economy and all the other circumstances make it a difficult and complicated matter. Here you have an aspect of the woman problem which faces us in all its magnitude, after the proletariat has come to power, and demands a practical solution. It will still require a great deal of effort here in Soviet Russia. But to return to your special problem in Germany. Under no circumstances should the Party look calmly upon such improper acts of its members. It causes confusion and splits out forces. Now what have you done to stop it?" Before I could answer Lenin continued: "The record of your sins, Clara, is even worse. I have been told that at the evenings arranged for reading and discussion with working women, sex and marriage problems come first. They are said to be the main objects of interest in your political instruction and educational work. I could not believe my ears when I heard that. The first state of proletarian dictatorship is battling with the counter-revolutionaries of the whole world. The situation in Germany itself calls for the greatest unity of all proletarian revolutionary forces, so that they can repel the counter-revolution which is pushing on. But active Communist women are busy discussing sex problems and the forms of marriage _ 'past, present and future'. They consider it their most important task to enlighten working women on these questions. "It is said that a pamphlet on the sex question written by a Communist authoress from Vienna enjoys the greatest popularity. What rot that booklet is! The workers read what is right in it long ago in Bebel. Only not in the tedious, cut-and-dried form found in the pamphlet but in the form of gripping agitation that strikes out at bourgeois society. The mention of Freud's hypotheses is designed to give the pamphlet a scientific veneer, but it is so much bungling by an amateur. Freud's theory has now become a fad. I mistrust sex theories expounded in articles, treatises, pamphlets, etc. _ in short, the theories dealt with in that specific literature which sprouts so luxuriantly on the dung heap of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are always absorbed in the sex problems, the way an Indian saint is absorbed in the contemplation of his navel. It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify one's own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. Intellectuals and others like them are particularly keen on this. There is no room for it in the Party, among the class-conscious, fighting proletariat. " ............ Besides; and this isn't the least important point, Solomon the Wise said there is a time for everything. I ask you, is this the time to keep working women busy for months at a stretch with such questions as how to love or be loved, how to woo or be wooed? This, of course, with regard to the 'past, present and future', and among the various races. And it is proudly styled historical materialism. Nowadays all the thoughts of Communist women, of working women, should be centred on the proletarian revolution, which will lay the foundation, among other things, for the necessary revision of material and sexual relations. Just now we must really give priority to problems other than the forms of marriage prevalent among Australia's aborigines, or marriage between brother and sister in ancient times. For the German proletariat, the problem of the Soviets, of the Versailles Treaty [3] and its impact on the lives of women, the problem of unemployment, of falling wages, of taxes and many other things remain the order of the day. To be brief, I am still of the opinion that this sort of political and social education of working women is wrong, absolutely wrong. How could you keep quiet about it? You should have set your authority against it." I told my fervent friend that I had never failed to criticise and to remonstrate with the leading women comrades in various places. But, as he knew, no prophet is honoured in his own country or in his own house. By my criticism I had drawn upon myself the suspicion that "survivals of a Social-Democratic attitude and old-fashioned philistinism were still strong" in my mind. However, in the end my criticism had proved effective. Sex and marriage were no longer the focal point in lectures at discussion evenings. Lenin resumed the thread of his argument. "Yes, yes, I know that," he said. "Many people rather suspect me of philistinism on this account, although such an attitude is repugnant to me _ it conceals so much narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy. Well, I'm unruffled by it. Yellow-beaked fledgelings newly hatched from their bourgeois-tainted eggs are all so terribly clever. We have to put up with that without mending our ways. The youth movement is also affected with the modern approach to the sex problem and with excessive interest in it." Lenin emphasised the word "modern" with an ironical, deprecating gesture. "I was also told that sex problems are a favourite subject in your youth organisations too, and that there are hardly enough lecturers on this subject. This nonsense is especially dangerous and damaging to the youth movement. It can easily lead to sexual excesses, to overstimulation of sex life and to wasted health and strength of young people. You must fight that too. There is no lack of contact between the youth movement and the women's movement. Our Communist women everywhere should cooperate methodically with young people. This will be a continuation of motherhood, will elevate it and extend it from the individual to the social sphere. Women's incipient social life and activities must be promoted, so that they can outgrow the narrowness of their philistine, individualistic psychology centred on home and family. But this is incidental. (continued in Part 2) ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 17:34:56 +0000 Subject: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2 FROM CLARA ZETKIN'S INTERVIEW OF LENIN: PART 2 (http://www.blythe.org/mlm/) "In our country, too, considerable numbers of young people are busy 'revising bourgeois conceptions and morals' in the sex question. And let me add that this involves a considerable section of our best boys and girls, of our truly promising youth. It is as you have just said. In the atmosphere created by the aftermath of war and by the revolution which has begun, old ideological values, finding themselves in a society whose economic foundations are undergoing a radical change, perish, and lose their restraining force. New values crystallise slowly, in the struggle. With regard to relations between people, and between man and woman, feelings and thoughts are also becoming revolutionised. New boundaries are being drawn between the rights of the individual and those of the community, and hence also the duties of the individual. Things are still in complete, chaotic ferment. The direction and potentiality of the various contradictory tendencies can still not be seen clearly enough. It is a slow and often very painful process of passing away and coming into being. All this applies also to the field of sexual relations, marriage, and the family. The decay, putrescence, and filth of bourgeois marriage with its difficult dissolution, its licence for the husband and bondage for the wife, and its disgustingly false sex morality and relations fill the best and most spiritually active of people with the utmost loathing. "The coercion of bourgeois marriage and bourgeois legislation on the family enhance the evil and aggravate the conflicts. It is the coercion of 'sacrosanct' property. It sanctifies venality, baseness, and dirt. The conventional hypocrisy of 'respectable' bourgeois society takes care of the rest. People revolt against the prevailing abominations and perversions. And at a time when mighty nations are being destroyed, when the former power relations are being disrupted, when a whole social world is beginning to decline, the sensations of the individual undergo a rapid change. A stimulating thirst for different forms of enjoyment easily acquires an irresistible force. Sexual and marriage reforms in the bourgeois sense will not do. In the sphere of sexual relations and marriage, a revolution is approaching _ in keeping with the proletarian revolution. Of course, women and young people are taking a deep interest in the complex tangle of problems which have arisen as a result of this. Both the former and the latter suffer greatly from the present messy state of sex relations. Young people rebel against them with the vehemence of their years. This is only natural. Nothing could be falser than to preach monastic self-denial and the sanctity of the filthy bourgeois morals to young people. However, it is hardly a good thing that sex, already strongly felt in the physical sense, should at such a time assume so much prominence in the psychology of young people. The consequences are nothing short of fatal. Ask Comrade Lilina about it. She ought to have had many experiences in her extensive work at educational institutions of various kinds and you know that she is a Communist through and through, and has no prejudices. "Youth's altered attitude to questions of sex is of course 'fundamental', and based on theory. Many people call it 'revolutionary' and 'communist'. They sincerely believe that this is so. I am an old man, and I do not like it. I may be a morose ascetic, but quite often this so-called 'new sex life' of young people _ and frequently of the adults too _ seems to me purely bourgeois and simply an extension of the good old bourgeois brothel. All this has nothing in common with free love as we Communists understand it. No doubt you have heard about the famous theory that in communist society satisfying sexual desire and the craving for love is as simple and trivial as `drinking a glass of water'. A section of our youth has gone mad, absolutely mad, over this 'glass-of-water theory'. It has been fatal to many a young boy and girl. Its devotees assert that it is a Marxist theory. I want no part of the kind of Marxism which infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things are not as simple as all that. A certain Frederick Engels has established this a long time ago with regard to historical materialism. "I consider the famous 'glass-of-water' theory as completely un-Marxist and, moreover, as anti-social. It is not only what nature has given but also what has become culture, whether of a high or low level, that comes into play in sexual life. Engels pointed out in his Origin of the Family how significant it was that the common sexual relations had developed into individual sex love and thus became purer. The relations between the sexes are not simply the expression of a mutual influence between economics and a physical want deliberately singled out for physiological examination. It would be rationalism and not Marxism to attempt to refer the change in these relations directly to the economic basis of society in isolation from its connection with the ideology as a whole. To be sure, thirst has to be quenched. But would a normal person normally lie down in the gutter and drink from a puddle? Or even from a glass whose edge has been greased by many lips? But the social aspect is more important than anything else. The drinking of water is really an individual matter. But it takes two people to make love and a third person, a new life, is likely to come into being. This deed has a social complexion and constitutes a duty to the community. "As a Communist I have no liking at all for the 'glass-of-water' theory, despite its attractive label: 'emancipation of love.' Besides, emancipation of love is neither a novel nor a communistic idea. You will recall that it was advanced in fine literature around the middle of the past century as 'emancipation of the heart'. In bourgeois practice it materialised into emancipation of the flesh. It was preached with greater talent than now, though I cannot judge how it was practiced. Not that I want my criticism to breed asceticism. That is farthest from my thoughts. Communism should not bring asceticism, but joy and strength, stemming, among other things, from a consummate love life. Whereas today, in my opinion, the obtaining plethora of sex life yields neither joy nor strength. On the contrary, it impairs them. This is bad, very bad, indeed, in the epoch of revolution. "Young people are particularly in need of joy and strength. Healthy sports, such as gymnastics, swimming, hiking, physical exercises of every description and a wide range of intellectual interests is what they need, as well as learning, study and research, and as far as possible collectively. This will be far more useful to young people than endless lectures and discussions on sex problems and the so-called living by one's nature. Mens sana in corpore sano. Be neither monk nor Don Juan, but not anything in between either, like a German philistine. You know the young comrade X. He is a splendid lad, and highly gifted. For all that, I am afraid that he will never amount to anything. He has one love affair after another. This is not good for the political struggle and for the revolution. I will not vouch for the reliability or the endurance of women whose love affair is intertwined with politics, or for the men who run after every petticoat and let themselves in with every young female. No, no, that does not go well with revolution." Lenin sprang to his feet, slapped the table with his hand and paced up and down the room. "The revolution calls for concentration and rallying of every nerve by the masses and by the individual. It does not tolerate orgiastic conditions so common among d'Annunzio's decadent heroes and heroines. Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity. Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no dissipation of energy. Self-control and self-discipline are not slavery; Not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women's problems." Lenin spoke with great animation and deep persuasion. I could feel that his every word came from the heart, and the expression on his face added to this feeling. From time to time he punctuated some idea with energetic gestures. I was astonished to see how much attention he devoted to trivial matters and how familiar he was with them, side by side with highly important political problems. And not only as concerned Soviet Russia, but also the still capitalist countries. Splendid Marxist that he was, he grasped the particular wherever and in whatever form it revealed itself, in its relation to, and its bearing upon, the whole. All his zest and purpose was concentrated with unshakeable singleness, like irresistible forces of nature, upon the one goal of speeding the revolution as a work of the masses. He evaluated everything in terms of its effect on the conscious motive forces of the revolution, both national and international, for while he evaluated the historically conditioned features of the individual countries and their different stages of development, he always had his eyes on the indivisible world-wide proletarian revolution. "Comrade Lenin, how I regret," I exclaimed, "that your words have not been heard by hundreds and thousands of people. As you know, you do not have to convert me. But how important it would be for friend and foe to hear your opinion! " Lenin smiled amiably. "I may speak or write some day on the questions we have discussed. But later, not now. Now all our time and strength must be concentrated on other things. There are bigger and more difficult jobs to do. The struggle to maintain and strengthen the Soviet state is not yet over by any means. We have to digest the outcome of the Polish War [4] and to make the most we can of it. Wrangel is still hanging on in the South. It is true, I am deeply convinced that we shall cope with him. That will give the British and French imperialists and their small vassals something to think about. But the most difficult part of our task, reconstruction, is still ahead. That will also bring the problems of sex relations, marriage and the family to the foreground. In the meantime, you will have to handle it as best you can where and when it is necessary. You should not allow these questions to be handled in an un-Marxist way or to serve as the basis for disruptive deviations and intrigues. Now at last I come to your work." ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:39:20 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walid Saba wrote: > > Martin, > > I am not just against religion, but I am also gainst Communist > religions!!!! You know what I mean here? Well, let me explain: > > Marx & Co. are not Gods. And not everything Lenin ever said > is a universal truth (ie something that is true in all > circumstances and for all times...) If that's the marxism you > believe in, then we do have 2 communisms here.. Agreed. But, in this case, I think Lenin's comments -- and the piece of the Bolshevik program I quoted -- are correct. > Mine is not > religion with prophits Marx and Lenin, mine is a sceintific > dialectic theory. So some statement that seems a bit tolerent > towards religion from Engles does not mean communism should > "respect indvidual's religious freedoms". That is what it meant for Lenin. Go and read the full article "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion" and his other main piece (available on the Lenin Internet Archive) as well as the 1919 program of the Russian Communist Party. > Like I said before, how > about other equally rotten ideas? How far do you want to go along > this path? > I think you need to read more Marx and Lenin on the subject. Yours is not a dialectical understanding of religion, but a mechanical, subjectivist and petty-bourgeois understanding. That's understandable; most of the "r-r-r-revolutionary left" teaches this vulgar view to its members. > >P.S.: Don't mess with the Director of the Lenin Archive. ;-) > > Could you explain what that might mean, please. > It's a joke! Note the winking "emoticon" at the end of the sentence. Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 12:42:59 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Re: The 'Defense of Marriage' Act John Ky wrote: > > >the nuclear family has been very advantageous to capitalism. > > Yes but don't non-nuclear families tend to result in more > to gender inequality? > > On the contrary, John. Engels talks about how the bourgeois nuclear family requires the subordination of women. Read "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" to find out more. Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:13:41 +1000 Klo: >Let's use the more accurate term "socialism," not communism. Now to >address the specific question. Socialism does defend the right of an >individual to practice his or her religion but there is no right to >spread it to others via the media etc. As long as you keep it to >yourself we can proceed. Such Irony. Some religions require preaching for practice. To not preach is to not practice. What do we do then? All the best, John Ky ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 13:14:58 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate Charles; I understand your concerns, but the NEUE EINHEIT issue has already went beyond its original frontiers. We are now debating the question of whether Marxists should fight for gay liberation: Yoshie and I say yes, Walid and NE say no, and Klo has questions (which I hope I answered). This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time. As I commented in earlier posts, Marxists defend oppressed people under capitalism, and seek to build a Leninist party that is a "tribune of the people", which includes gay and lesbian workers. The question of fighting for gay rights is a central debate for communists, not a distraction. Martin Charles F. Moreira wrote: > > Comrades, > > This link http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm provided at > the bottom of the post by bautiste@uswest.net who wrote:- -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:25:52 +1000 Klo: >Yoshie. You are switching the subject. We are not talking >about the development of marriage and sex-love. We are talking >about whether or not homosexuality is natural or not. A caesarian is not natural but is sometimes required. But that doesn't seem to use the definition of the word "natural" which you use. Exactly what do you mean by natural? ***************************************** From: Les Schaffer Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT) To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany >>>>> ">" == Martin Schreader writes: >> That's understandable; most of the "r-r-r-revolutionary left" >> teaches this vulgar view to its members. and then on http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909-att.htm """To people with a slapdash attitude towards Marxism, to people who cannot or will not think, this history is a skein of meaningless Marxist contradictions and waverings, a hodge-podge of "consistent" atheism and "sops" to religion, "unprincipled" wavering between a r-r-revolutionary war on God""" did Lenin use this r-r-r formulation, or did you just make that up? les schaffer ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:10:31 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2 > Questions of whether homosexuality is chosen or part of one's nature at > birth is difficult to answer. This is a question for scholars. But on > defending gay rights, there is no question. I view the Neue Einheit > position as deeply reactionary. > > Louis Proyect But it is the question that matters Lou. On defending gay rights there is a question. You are ducking the crucial component. The answer you give to your first sentence should determine how you act with respect to your third sentence. It is not just a question for scholars. It is a question that must be addressed by anyone who takes a position on this issue. Is it natural or isn't it. Is it an illness or isn't it. Is is a perversion or isn't it. If it is unnatural or a sickness or a perversion, it would make about as much sense to defend it as it would to defend the right to sell pornography or freely circulate with AIDS. I for one want a definitive answer on this question. Klo ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:24:40 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: The Gay Question [was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT] Martin Schreader wrote: > > Following is the letter I initially sent to Klo regarding the questions > at hand. As Klo said, it does go to the "meat of the matter." > > Martin > > ========== forwarded message ========== > > Klo; > > I will attempt to answer your initial questions as best as possible. > I'm answering this off-list for personal reasons. > > kloDMcKinsey wrote: > > > > Krixel > > > > I have some questions for you. > > > > Question #1: Is homosexuality learned or is it genetic. Are people > > born that way or is it acquired by choice? Is it natural or > > unnatural? Is it an illness or acceptable in a mentally healthy > > individual? In other words, from whence comes it? > > Before Marxism can address this issue on the world scene, these > > questions must be answered. > > > > According to the prevailing research, homosexuality is genetic and > natural. Tests among identitical and fraternal twins (the latter more > important to research). In those tests, when one twin was gay, > generally so was the other. The testing also expanded to twins > separated at birth; again, the results were the same. Therefore, it was > concluded, homosexuality is a natural, genetic part of human life. > > As for the question of "illness": The American Psychiatric Association, > which once was the progenitor of such a theory (that "homosexuality" is > an illness), reversed its decision in the 1970s. Today, it is commonly > regarded in psychiatric circles that any mental instability in gays and > lesbians is as a result of discrimination and demonization from society, > and not their sexual orientation -- i.e., stress. > > So, to directly answer you: Homosexuality is genetic. They are born > that way. It is natural. It is acceptable in a mentally healthy > individual. In other words, it comes from human nature. Martin Your position is well considered and well structured. However, if what you say is true, could you answer this question? Is there any animal in the world, other than the human animal, in which males are sexually attracted to males and females are attracted to females. Or is this confined only to the human species? Klo > Martin > -- > Martin Schreader > Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive > http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ > > Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ > > -- > "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize > yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, > even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." > (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) > > -- The Best to you, ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:32:03 +0100 From: "João Paulo Monteiro" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany kloDMcKinsey wrote: > We are talking about whether or > not homosexuality is natural or not. > Klo, Of course, there are genetic and endocrinological factors that favour homosexuality. But one cannot say that such and such people were *born* homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter). So, if this is the only condition under which you would tolerate homosexuality, I don't think it occurs at all. Homesexuality is a choice. It is caused by a very wide reunion and reciprocal influence of natural and social factors. The result being that some people find more pleasure and gratification in homosexual relations than in the heterosexual norm. The proof that homosexuality is "natural" is that it exists. Over the ages and across many different cultural universes, a very great number of people have made that choice, sometimes at great personal risk and against all odds. So the problem is not if homosexuality is "natural" (that is, in your sense, imposed with irresistible force on some people by natural factors). The problem is one of knowing if a society should promote or/and enforce a given pattern of sexual behaviour to its members. The answer is not as simple as some liberal PC optimists would assume. No human society has ever existed without its sexual taboos. Sex is indeed a public matter. It spills over continuously to questions of social order. Some societies can permit themselves a certain permissiveness and tolerance that others can't. Can we accept sexual slavery? Incest? Pedophilia? (I believe many conceivable relations that could fall under all of these cathegories are indeed acceptable, but social normativity is not about individual cases - it's about establishing an abstract norm.) As regards homosexuality, I am positively sure we can and we should. Attempts at depicting homosexuality as bourgeois and decadent are pure lunacy. The "new man" we are all struggling for can be straight or gay/lesbian, as (s)he wishes and pertains to his/hers self-fulfillment. João Paulo Monteiro ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:44:15 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Les Schaffer wrote: > > did Lenin use this r-r-r formulation, or did you just make that up? > > les schaffer > It's original; Lenin used it. But the "r-r-r-revolutionary" term is commonly used today among various groups. Martin -- Martin Schreader Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ -- "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 20:56:45 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1 Martin Schreader wrote: > > Hey Chatterbox! > > First, I find your attempts at provocation disingenuous and quite > disgusting. I will not debate you; IMO, your opinions on the gay > question are the same as the ultra-right and christian fundamentalists. > > You are scum. > > Martin > > P.S.: I am not Director of the Trotsky Archive; David Walters is. I am > Director of the Lenin Archive. Get over yourself! > > Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: > > > > These aspects were very clearly analyzed by Lenin in the talk he had > > with Clara Zetkin. Since neither Yoshie nor our indignant Director of > > the Trotsky Archive have provided us with any comprehensive > > statements on the sexual question from the founders of Marxism, I > > enclose a few quotes from the interview below (the complete text of > > the interview is available at http://www.blythe.org/mlm/ in the > > Feminism section). Sid I read the Zetkin interview. There was a tremendous amount on the women's movement and their struggle for equality and justice but you will have to show me where it said anything about homosexuality. You are giving the impression that Lenin is supporting your position when I don't see him doing so. Klo > > > > The defense of people who are being truly persecuted by the > > capitalist state or society for their sexual lifestyle has to be > > unconditional in my opinion. However, that does not or should not > > imply that a particular type of sexual lifestyle has to be actively > > promoted by the socialists and communists. > > > > -- > Martin Schreader > Director, V.I. Lenin Internet Archive > http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ > > Marxists' Internet Archive -- http://www.marxists.org/ > > -- > "Proletarians and semi-proletarians of city and country, organize > yourselves separately! Place no trust in any small proprietors, > even the petty ones, even those who 'toil'." > (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works [Goszdat, 1927], Vol. 9) > > -- The Best to you, ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:06:16 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany João Paulo Monteiro wrote: > > kloDMcKinsey wrote: > > > Now you are saying it is a matter of choice again. Pinning you down on > > this issue is like trying to nail jello to the wall. > > > > I'm afraid your insistence on either natural or choice (which you immediately > equate with perversion, illness, etc.), one or the other, reveals a complete > inhability to think dialectically. > > If this is muddy waters to you, I won't be the one to clear them for you. The > world is a very muddy place indeed. > > João Paulo Monteiro > > My reply, I have no problem thinking dialectically. That's why I asked for percentages when someone claimed it was a mixture of the two. For those who feel that it is a mixture I would like, however, a more detailed presentation of how that operates in reality. If it is a choice, how can it be essentially genetic. On the other hand, if it is essentially genetic, then how can there be any real choice. Unfortunately, in so far as I am aware this is a major issue upon which today's Marxists are going to have to "wing it" because I am unaware of any definitive comments on this issue by Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. I know of no writings by the masters to which we can refer. Klo ***************************************** From: "Ben Seattle" To: Subject: L-I: GABS vs. DAB -- and the future DoP Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:44:59 -0700 1) GABS vs. DAB =============== Martin Schreader: > We are now debating the question of whether > Marxists should fight for gay liberation: > ... > This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time. Martin, it is probably the case that the great majority on this list are agreed that Marxists should fight against the oppression of homosexuals, against homophobic and oppressive culture and so forth. It is a *different question* whether it is a good use of everyone's time and bandwidth to debate Krixel (the Neue Einheit guy) or Walid or Klo about anything. There is nothing wrong, on a list like this, with ignoring people who say stupid things. In fact, such a policy is often the only practical course of action. Yoshie has responded to them with very intelligent ridicule. In my view, Yoshie's attitude is the correct one. When something extremely stupid is posted--it should (1) be ridiculed, and (2) thereafter ignored. I do not consider Krixel or Walid or Klo to be "counter-revolutionary", etc. They are simply very confused people who, like us, would like to see the development of a communist movement that is worthy of the allegiance of the working class. At the same time, they are fairly clueless about a vast number of issues and it is a mistake to try to educate them at the expense of *everyone else's time and bandwidth*. What happens when you try to do this--is that the signal-to-noise ratio of the list falls dramatically--and intelligent and dedicated subscribers conclude that their time is being wasted--and they un*sub*scribe. When this happens, the list goes downhill, as the serious subscribers (who want to do something in the world) leave, and the word-twisting, time-wasting spammers (who like nothing more than to talk) remain. What I believe must be fought is what I call the "give attention to bozos syndrome" (ie: GABS). What is better is to "deny attention to bozos" (ie: DAB). Experience will show that a high signal-to-noise ratio can only be built with a policy of DAB, not GABS. If you believe it *is* necessary or useful to debate Krixel/Walid/Klo--then I suggest that, to keep the bandwidth wastage down, you confine yourself to one post a day and urge them to do the same. Many others would probably appreciate it. 2) The future DoP ================= Having said that, I would like to introduce a topic that may be more central to the development of communist theory as a force in the world. Klo: > Socialism does defend the right of an individual > to practice his or her religion but there is no right > to spread it to others via the media etc. > As long as you keep it to yourself we can proceed. The "media", within a few decades, will be the product of a convergence between the present day "mass media" and the internet. Put another way: the internet is well on its way to becomming a mass medium. Klo's remarks tend to create the impression that the future "D of P" will prevent ordinary people from promoting religion (or other wrong or backward ideas) on their websites. In fact, Klo has indicated elsewhere that this is his view. But a more narrow and clueless view of the future DoP is hard to find. The future DoP, in a country like the US with a modern infrastructure, will censor the public media (ie: the mass media and the internet) only with respect to use by commercial enterprises. Hence obnoxious advertising that promotes commodity fetishism and which is pushed into people's faces -- *will* be regulated. Anything backed by bourgeois or comercial resources *will* be subject to censorship. But if individual workers want to build web sites that draw thousands (or millions) of visitors--this will *not* be censored--even if the views expressed are stupid and reactionary. (The exceptions to this, such as child pornography or neo-nazi or extreme racist propaganda--would be relatively insignificant.) It will be the freedom of the masses to openly promote their own views--to listen to what they like--and to denounce what they don't--that will be the source of the invincible strength of the future proletarian democracy. I go into this in a little more depth, by the way, in chapter 8 of my "Party of the Future" series, available at my website. Sincerely, Ben Seattle ----//-// 3.Oct.98 www.Leninism.org ***************************************** Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 05:02:06 +0800 From: "Charles F. Moreira" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Beware of this debate Comrades, Martin Schreader wrote: > > Charles; > > I understand your concerns, but the NEUE EINHEIT issue has already went > beyond its original frontiers. We are now debating the question of > whether Marxists should fight for gay liberation: Yoshie and I say yes, > Walid and NE say no, and Klo has questions (which I hope I answered). > > This is neither a distraction nor a waste of time. As I commented in > earlier posts, Marxists defend oppressed people under capitalism, and > seek to build a Leninist party that is a "tribune of the people", which > includes gay and lesbian workers. The question of fighting for gay > rights is a central debate for communists, not a distraction. > > Martin Martin, I was concerned by the nature of the content on this link:- http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm which is definitely not a Marxist or progressive site by any stretch of the imagination. The statement below posted by bautiste@uswest.net effectively says that homosexuality was not accepted as the norm in any society whether in a highly urbanised industrial society or in less advanced types of societies. While bautiste@uswest.net is correct, the argument he or she advances seems to side with Neus Einheit's position, which is why -- coupled with the content of the web site -- I was suspicious of a diversion. ======================================================================== Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:35:52 -0600 From: bautiste@uswest.net Reply-To:leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu References: 1 >From what I understand, there are no indigenous societies in which homesxuality is a norm. If one extrapolates purely on the grounds that indigenous societies somehow represent a social form closer to nature, and more industrialized societies as more _artificial_, then there might be something to the notion that homosexuality is not natural. But then, who accepts the assumption that indigenous societies are _closer_ to nature? Anyway, this is supposed to be an anthropological fact, i.e., that no indigenous societies have norms wherein homosexuals live and express their sexual preference for members of the same sex. The implication being that it is only in more _urbanized_ and more rationalized societies that homesexuality becomes an option. This seems to be the conclusion of early Greek thinkers. I have not studied _all_ the indigenous societies of the world, so I accept as true, until proven otherwise, this fact, since the person who said is a world-renowned expert in indigenous cultures. If anyone would know, he would. ======================================================================== OK. Given the existence of two sexes among the higher animals, including humans, I would expect that our biological nature would tend us towards heterosexuality in order to propagate the species. However, homosexuality has existed for a long time, if not throughout history based upon the fact that it is forbiden or discouraged in most major religions. The question then is what causes it.? Is it due to a genetic predisposition among a certain percentage of people (and perhaps animals), just like some people are genetically predisposed to diabetes, hypertension, cancer, obesity and so on? Is it due to psychological factors? Is it due to upbringing? Does it occur only in an urbanised environment or does it also occur in rural and tribal societies as well? Is it due to external influences of peers, the media? Or is it due to a combination of one or more of the above factors? Finally, can anything be done about it? As far as I know from my contact with Asian society, homosexuality is not encouraged or glorified in any culture. However, a friend told me that even in feudal Chinese society, homosexuality was accepted as a sort of abnormality, just as one may regard someone with a cleft palatte. However, the Chinese did not go around killing or beating up homosexuals, though neither did they tolerate or advocate openly flaunting it either. In Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, there have always been some transvestites ie. men who dress and behave like women and vice versa and some have even gone so far as to have a sex change operation in Singapore. Once again such people may be laughed at or ridiculed but as far as I know, never harmed. Except for Malaysia, one reason for this tolerance IMHO is the far eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism and so on which are very much based on nature and thus consider such phenomena as abberations of nature. In Malaysia which officially is an Islamic (a Middle Eastern religion like Christianity and Judiaism) country, transvestites and homosexuality have come under stronger sanction, especially with the growing influence of Islam from countries like Iran, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan. Despite that, Anwar Ibrahim is the first person in Malaysia who has been prosecuted under the penal code for alleged homosexuality and as most of us realise, that is so for political reasons, since the conflict between the Mahathir and Anwar factions is a power struggle within the ruling United Malays National Organisation party. In fact, Muslims here have been prosecuted under the Shariah (Islamic) law for engaging pre-marital sex but I also haven't heard of any being prosecuted for homosexual activities. I'm told that even under Islam, it is not a crime to be homosexual but it is a crime to engage in homosexual acts even privately. So while homosexuals is officially illegal in most South East Asian countries until recently and homosexuals cannot openly flaunt their homosexuality, we don't hear of things like gay bashing which takes place in western countries where it is allowed. Recently, especially due to western influence, I've heard that gay bars and so on have sprung up and exist quite openly in Thailand. In fact, when I went to the island of Phuket in southern Thailand, I saw gay bars advertsing themselves more blatantly than even in Vancouver, Canada. I also believe, homosexuals are quite free in the Philippines too. However, that still beings us back to the questions I raised above as to why homosexuality happens, which then leads us on to the question of whether Marxists should defend homosexuals against oppression in bourgeois society and allow homosexuals to function under a socialist society? I would say that Marxists should defend homosexuals (including lesbians) against oppression and discrimination under bourgeois society and also allow them the freedom to go about their sexual affairs under a socialist society. However, as with the Marxist approach towards heterosexuality, this defense should not go so far as to tolerate or encourage things like paedophilia and other perversions. Sex, violence and escapism in bourgeois society is exploited like a commodity by pornographers, film producers, advertisers and so on to make money and this should not be tolerated by Marxists whether in bourgeois or socialist society. Produces of such bourgeois commercial culture will argue that they are "giving the people what they want" and unfortunately, the workers and other people tend to go for it and it tends to lower the overall cultural level among the masses. Based upon the few Soviet films I have, even during the time of Gorbachev, I could see that such films served to raise the overall cultural level of the masses and likewise for the Chinese ballets during the time of Mao Tse Tung. Produces of bourgeois culture obviously regard the working class as base and banal and feed them such culture, while the dictatorship of the proletariat will strive to raise the overall material, cultural and intellectual level of the proletariat and other classes under socialism -- and why not. After all, as the ruling class, the proletariat has every right to provide the very best for itself. Yours fraternally Charles ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:33:07 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: Re: Fw: Lenin on Sex: 2 FROM CLARA ZETKIN'S INTERVIEW OF LENIN: PART 2 (http://www.blythe.org/mlm/) "In our country, too, considerable numbers of young people are busy 'revising bourgeois conceptions and morals' in the sex question. And let me add that this involves a considerable section of our best boys and girls, of our truly promising youth. It is as you have just said. In the atmosphere created by the aftermath of war and by the revolution which has begun, old ideological values, finding themselves in a society whose economic foundations are undergoing a radical My reply, Sid. I read both Parts of your Zetkin interview but you failed to prove your point. Again I would ask. Where does Lenin state his position with respect to homosexuality? You appear to oppose the latter rather strongly, but you are using quotes from Lenin that don't support your position. I would fully concur with Lenin's views, but they are not supporting your position. Then, again, they are not opposing it either. That's the dilemma. Klo ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:40:49 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1 Martin Schreader Organization: V.I. Lenin Internet Archive > Hey Chatterbox! > > First, I find your attempts at provocation disingenuous and quite > disgusting. I will not debate you; IMO, your opinions on the gay > question are the same as the ultra-right and christian fundamentalists. > > You are scum. > > Martin > > P.S.: I am not Director of the Trotsky Archive; David Walters is. I am > Director of the Lenin Archive. Get over yourself! > The Director waxes even more indignant, and after a deprecating comment about my last name, hurls the accusation of 'ultra-right' and 'christian fundamentalists' scum (corollary: in league with the fascists). Similar to the knee-jerk vitriolic expletive of "anti-semitism" used by Zionists and supporters of the Israeli state to SILENCE all questions and criticisms. And after I had clearly stated my own position as follows: "The defense of people who are being truly persecuted by the capitalist state or society for their sexual lifestyle has to be unconditional in my opinion. However, that does not or should not imply that a particular type of sexual lifestyle has to be actively promoted by the socialists and communists." So the question as to the behavior esposued by the Director is this: Is this Marxism or the Devil's Dance? Is Marxism a science with all questions open for discussion and analysis or is it not? And what I did was present Lenin's own views on the the sexual question. And that too on a list called leninist-international. Perhaps Lenin was 'scum' too for writing what he did in no unceratin terms. The Director should pay close heed to these words of Lenin (that is, if he truly claims the mantle of Leninism): "It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify one's own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. Intellectuals and others like them are particularly keen on this. There is no room for it in the Party, among the class-conscious, fighting proletariat. " Finally, as to his post-scripted comment " I am not Director of the Trotsky Archive; David Walters is. I am Director of the Lenin Archive. Get over yourself!", it is amusing to say the least. After all, many have been the attempts made to smuggle in that bourgeois ideology which goes by the name of Trotskyism under the cover of Leninism. That this is so anyone can see for themselves at the Director's web site. Sid ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:43:38 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey To: "leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu" Subject: Re: Fw: Daniel Guerin (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaignin Germany) Quinn McKinsey wrote: > >   > -----Original Message----- > From: Yoshie Furuhashi > To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu > > Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 8:34 PM > Subject: Daniel Guerin (was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election > campaignin Germany) > > Daniel Guerin is well known for his work Fascism and Big Bisiness. He > also published his reports on the early days of the Nazis in power, > which are now available in a book form: The Brown Plague. Guerin later > went on to play an important part in a homosexual liberation movement > as well. In the 50s, he published Kinsey et la sexualite. He also made > contributions to Arcadie, one of the early French journals of the > homophile movement. During the 60s, he wrote for Gai pied--a gay > liberation journal. And in the early 70s, Guerin took part in the > front homosexuel d'action revolutionnaire. In his autobiography, he > gives an account of the place his sexuality and desire for liberation > occupied in his revolutionary commitment. Daniel Guerin, along with > many others, was an important nodal point that linked sexual > liberation movements to left-wing politics. > > Yoshie Yoshie With all due respect that is not the issue. No knowledgeable person would deny that homosexuals have contributed a great deal to society. Gore Vidal wrote some commendable literature and Charles Laughton made some commendable movies. But the basic question remains. What is the nature of homosexuality. I also return to my other original questions which I will not repeat. Klo ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 23:13:10 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Fw: Lenin on Sex: 2 kloDMcKinsey > > Sid. I read both Parts of your Zetkin interview but you failed to prove > your point. Again I would ask. Where does Lenin state his position > with respect to homosexuality? You appear to oppose the latter rather > strongly, but you are using quotes from Lenin that don't support your > position. I would fully concur with Lenin's views, but they are not > supporting your position. Then, again, they are not opposing it > either. That's the dilemma. > > Klo You should try to think a little before you write, Klo. The real question under discussion is human sexuality. Both hetero- and homo-sexuality are component parts of human sexual behavior and the question is how should Marxists understand and relate to this subject. That was the point of quoting Lenin's own views on the matter. My brief comments were directed at the sexuality question in general and not to homosexuality in particular. So it is not clear why you make the statement "You appear to oppose the latter (homosexuality - SC) rather strongly". I see that Yoshie has started posting material on Fascism and Homophobia, which is quite besides the point and does not address the heart of the issue. It is quite well known what the fascists did to socialists, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, in fact anyone who fit into their concept of "unter-menschen". The Zionists and supporters of Israel indulge in a similar kind of tactic. They focus exlusively on the Jewish victims of Hitler's genocide and often do not even mention any other victims (e.g. 25 million Soviet victims). What is the point of such an exercise is not clear. Perhaps, it is an attempt to paint us with the brush of homophobia. But what it does is betray a theoretical weakness and evasion of the issue of the sexual question. Sid ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 17:14:56 -0500 From: Carrol Cox To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: > One question for Yoshie and the Director of the (Lenin) Trotsky > Internet Archive. What is their opinion of the rights of those > who practice incest? Siddarth, this is utterly unprincipled, and though I have had very high respect for you over the years I have read you on cyberspace, this is very close to disqualifying you as a person worth arguing with. It belongs to the same genres of discourse as the slimiest of red-baiting. What is your opinion of the rights of those who overeat at breakfast? What is your opinion of those who beat up gays? Have you stopped beating up your mother? Have you stopped leaving stink bombs in apartment building hallways? What is your opinion on human sacrifice among the Aztecs? What is your opinion about the methods of statisticians under the fourth French Republic? And so on? Carrol ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 23:19:44 +0100 From: "João Paulo Monteiro" 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. João Paulo Monteiro ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 18:38:10 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect 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 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 > To: 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 > >To: 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" To: 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" 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 To: Leninist-International List 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 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 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 1 Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: > > Martin Schreader > 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: "João Paulo Monteiro" 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. João Paulo Monteiro ***************************************** Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:08:30 -0400 From: Martin Schreader 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 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 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 > 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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" To: 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 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: "João Paulo Monteiro" 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. João Paulo Monteiro ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" 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. 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 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" To: 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" To: 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 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" To: 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 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Fw: Lenin on Sex: 2 Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: > > kloDMcKinsey > > > > > 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 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" To: "Leninist International" 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 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 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 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany João Paulo Monteiro wrote: > > kloDMcKinsey wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > João 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 > 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 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 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. > > > > Yours fraternally > > Charles > > -- The Best to you, ***************************************** Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:50:19 +0000 From: kloDMcKinsey 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 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 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 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 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" 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. Yours fraternally Charles ***************************************** Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 22:57:46 +0100 From: Mark Jones 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: "João Paulo Monteiro" 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. João Paulo Monteiro ***************************************** Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:32:25 -0500 From: Carrol Cox 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 Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Walid Saba wrote: >The collective BEFORE the INDIVIDUAL. Sieg Heil, buddy. Doug ***************************************** To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 20:17:39 -0400 Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT]) From: farmelantj@JUNO.COM (James Farmelant) On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 18:04:16 +0000 kloDMcKinsey writes: >> > >> 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. In order to convince me that this discussion of natural and unnatural is of value you are going to have to explain what you mean by these terms otherwise we are going to continue to end up in a muddle. > >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. You have me thoroughly confused here. If good or bad isn't not the question here then what is? Were you not inquiring whether or not homosexuality is something that "...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." That to me sounds you are concerned whther or not homosexuality is good or bad. > 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. > Here you seem to be saying that your main concern is whether or not sexual orientation is something that people can be held morally responsible for. However, that is a separate issue from whether or not a particular sexual orientation is socially or morally desirable. One could hold that homosexuals have no control over their sexual orientation but that homosexually is socially undesirable. If one holds such a view then one might oppose criminalization of homosexuality while advocating the treatment of homosexuals as mentally ill. Logically an advocate of such a view might well favor forced medical or psychiatric treatment of homosexuals in order to change their orientation. Indeed that that used to be the position of most of the psychiatric establishment prior to the 1970s. On the other hand it is also logically possible to hold that people freely choose their sexual orientations and that society ought to protect people's freedom to make such choices. > >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. > Actually I think that most conceptions of human nature are pretty muddled anyway. However, I don't see why Marxists ought to have any quarrel with J.S. Mill's view that our imperative with regard to human nature is "no to follow but to ammend it" since Marxists have always emphasized the historicity of human nature. Marxists least of all have been willing to swallow reactionary shibboleths concerning the supposed unalterability of human nature. I suppose Marxists would modify Mill's dicta to say that it is human nature to modify human nature as we acquire mastery over the world around us. >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. Are you telling me that if it were to be demonstrated that pedophilia is the result of a genetic predisposition then it should be treated as being socially and morally acceptable? And that pedophiles ought then to be protected by society in their rights to gratify themselves because they act on the basis of a genetically based compulsion. Perhaps if Jefferey Dahmer had been a little smarter then he could have argued that his behavior was a consequence of a gentically based compulsion and Klo would have then fought for his right to gratify himself as he saw fit. The absurdity of this view should be apparent to all. The problem here is that Klo confuses the issue of the moral or social desirability of a particular behavior with the issue whether or not the person who commits it should be held responsible for it. They are two different though related questions. > > > 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. If you could wipe out a particular sexual orientation through genetic engineering would you do so? >But the question for now is the source and how should it be >approached. > ___________________________________________________________________ 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] ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 03:08:50 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2 Louis Proyect: > > 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. > A remarkable and dishonest trick by Louis Proyect! You referred to Lenin as a batty Puritan when Lenin was speaking of the new sexual attitudes w.r.t hetero-sexuality and NOT homo-sexuality. I simply pointed out that you had not understood the context in which and why Lenin made these remarks. There was nothing remotely connected to the persecution of gay people in what Lenin or what I said. And yet, NOW you bring in persecution of gay people by Puritanism and say "What does this have to do with puritanical attitudes towards gay people." What a performance coming from a self-professed Marxist and done in in order to paint his opponent with the brush of homophobia. And a striking parallel with the "anti-semitism" tactic commonly used by Zionists in order to silence all criticism and questions. One can understand why Adolfo referred to you once as a sly fox. > 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. No, it is you whose horizons are circumscribed by the bourgeois notions of sexuality and sexual freedom. You do not realize that in the present capitalist system, all forms of sexuality, marriage, free-love, homosexuality, etc. all of them have been commodified. Sex in general, has become a commodity to be consumed and a means of escape from the oppression and alienation of capitalist society. The bourgeois state may dangle carrots before us and convert practices which were once considered taboos into practices allowed by law - but there is no real escape, only a temporary diversion. You also forget that how we satisfy our sexual needs are to a large extent determined by the existing social system and these sexual needs themselves are also products of society (Marx: 'production produces consumption'). You should do some study of the advances made by the womens' movement in ex-socialist societies like revolutionary China and how they achieved them concretely instead of making empty irrelevant statements like those above and your comment decrying the 'puritanism' of 1930s Russia in a previous post. > What is opportunist sexual behavior? Nelson Mandela masturbating? > I do not know about Nelson Mandela, Your Majesty, but Bill Clinton is a good example. > > 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. > Amazing, simple amazing! You yourself referred to Lenin as a batty Puritan in matters of (hetero-) sexuality, and now after being caught in your rope trick, you once again say that I am trying to legitimize Puritanism by dragging in poor Lenin out of context! Well, Lenin spoke for himself forcefully and the time and place were clear in his remarks. And then you jump to the subject of criminalization of homosexuality (which any thinking person will condemn), etc. What a deflecting tactic! > > 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. > Well, you were trying to banish the memory of Lenin (on a list called Leninist-International) by saying that you would "put a ban on quotation-mongering" with which the bourgeoisie would agree most heartily. And when you yourself indulge in this practice routinely in your list by a more or less regular supply of articles from the academic Marxists newly ensconced at MR. As to prostitution, I am most curious to hear your views. About AIDS in India, what you say is correct to some extent but it is mainly the political-economic trajectory followed by the Indian ruling class (literacy rate has not changed substantially since 'independence') and the colonial legacy which is responsible, among many things, for the spread of AIDS. Your idea of Puritanism should be connected to the social relations that give birth to such Puritanism. That is if you call yourself a Marxist. But your last line is positively insulting and full of First-World condescension. You forgot perhaps that the Kama Sutra originated from India. Your posts have revealed the superficial nature of thinking on this subject. The concept of 'free love' that you adhere to is thoroughly permeated with bourgeois ideology and miles apart from the socialist concept of 'free love' which Lenin spoke of. That is why you uncomprehendingly called him a batty Puritan. In revolutionary China, to advance women's liberation, some of the practices in matters of sexuality which were followed were: 1. Late marriage and prolonged celibacy 2. Monogamy 3. Marriage laws that discriminated against men and were in favor of women. 4.True freedom of choice 5. New concept of love To you and many others on this list, some of the above (1, 2 and 5) will be bewildering and smack of conventional Judeo-Christian morality. That is because you look at sexual freedom in the abstract, as an absolute, with no connection to the underlying material base which will make such a freedom possible. Yet, it was precisely these measures that were leading to a true "voluntary union among equals" in China. Measures that were laying the foundation for the ultimate negation of the negation (i.e. of bourgeois marriage) which may take centuries to achieve. But instead of the complexity involved in this matter of human sexuality, what do you supply us with? The example of the Bonobo chimpanzees. Which is similar to how captalist intellectuals justify free-market competition - by pointing out that it exists in the animal kingdom. Yours is an idealistic fanatasy of something like primitive communism to which no return is possible unless humanity is completely destroyed and has to start all over again. So instead of a spiral development upwards, Louis Proyect has at last completed the full circle. I salute you for your profundity, Sir! Yours humbly, S. Chatterjee ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: Re: L-I: Lenin on Sex: 2 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 13:35:13 +1000 Myself: > 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. >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. Actually the documentary portrayed it that way, I was merely regurgitating it. The conclusion wasn't mine. >Anyway, I don't think that pursuing the naturalness >of an act in another species is proper scientific >evaluation. >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. Actually I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of drawing conclusions about naturalness from the behaviour of animals. I was not make quick judgements. >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. Exactly. Homosexuality is only obvious in a particular species of ape. In some species of ape, the female has pride of place in respectable positions in the community where status is inherited from the mother. In others, the female is subordinate snacking on the remains of the feast only after the male (the hunters) have finished with it. If you want behaviours that act in the norm these are examples of it. A person for equal gender rights will quote the former, a person against it will quote the latter. How do you settle that argument? The most one can say is that there exists these diverse set of primate societies - each and everyone of them natural because they exist. To pick any one of them to explain what is natural or not natural in humans is _very_ unscientific. It is an interesting topic, and is thought provoking about the possibilities of homosexuality being natural but no more and no less. Myself: >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? Klo: >How do you know it is not for that particular species. >You are rushing to judgment again. It _was_ for a particular species. That's part of the absurdity of any judgement. Myself: >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? Klo: >Mother what? An ape or a human being? In either >case, it is could very well be a reasonable natural >reaction. An ape ... and yes - a reasonable natural reaction. The refusal to accept the truth. The human being has two sides of the brain, one side (I think the left) is very good at lying, trying to put a rule to everything when it is no more than random. (Walking under a ladder brings bad luck? Throwing a pinch of salt over your left shoulder brings good luck?) You see, there are plenty of arguments that suggest that religion is the result of natural human behaviour. This at least is the study of humans _compared_ to other animals. You can't simply observe any group of species and apply those observations to humans without studying humans. >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. Subjective because the variety of animals lets anyone choose the species that suits them best. Reproduceable, preditable and reliable, but the conclusion you make depends entirely on the experiment you choose to start with. To quote from Louis Proyect: >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. Showing curiosity, interest and experience is only a part of science. Being cautious and open to alternatives is the only way to ensure that science is pure. I haven't been arguing the case for multiple definitions of DoP for no particular reason. All the best, John Ky. ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: L-I: Rights and Human Nature Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:17:33 +1000 Klo: >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. The big difference here is that some choices compromises the rights of others. I gather that homosexuality can be acceptable because both parties engaging in the act give consent and because it is private no one else would be affected by it. Choice is okay as long as it takes into consideration the rights of others. The choices you mention _DO_ intrude upon the rights of others - that makes all the difference. Klo: >"Human nature." There's that phrase again. I wish >someone could define it. Probably means some rule about human behaviour that could be applied to all human. When someone speaks of selfishness or envy as part of human nature, I get suspicious. How about + randomness + competitiveness being the of the many elements of human nature. It is something that I suppose most people would feel more comfortable with because it is non-disrciminatory and neither negative nor positive. Drawing human nature along these lines may be more help in the construction of socialist theory and models. I've included an article that supports both these points. All the best, John Ky ============================== THE ARBITRARY APE (New Scientist, 22 August) Our ability to behave and think randomly may lie at the root of human intelligence and creativity. Dynlan Evans spins the roulette wheel in our heads. ------------------------------ WE ALL HAVE something of the Greek god in us. Proteus to be precise, who outwitted his enemies by constantly changing his shape. Humans may not go as far as transmogrification but when it comes to confusing a rival, our talent for erratic behaviou is second to none. A rabbit pursued by a fox will bob and weave in a chaotic zigzag, rather than make a beeline for cover. Other animals use different forms of randome behaviour to evade predators or catch their prey. But humans are the only ones who rely on unpredictability as a weapon in competition against each other, whether it be in a game of football or in international diplomacy. Such behaviour has long been ignored, but researchers are now waking up to the fact that not only can we behave in very random ways, but that such actions are far from pointless. Unpredictable behaviou may have eveolved as a way of keeping our rivals in the dark. This could explain some of our strangest behaviour as sudden mood swings, and it also adds a whole new dimension to understanding the evolution of human intelligence. Our highly developed sense of the erratic may be the spark that allows an ape adapted for savannah living to paint the Sistine Chapel, design the space shuttle and invent advertising slogans. British biologist Michael Chance coined the phrase "protean behaviour" in 1959, while at the University of Birmingham. But the evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon is less than a decade old. It began with the observation by two British etholigists, Peter Driver and David Humphries, that many animals develop cognitive capacities so that they can predict the actions of their competitors or prey. Natural selection then favours mechanisms that make these actions harder to predict, so their enemeies evolve better predictive powers and an evolutionary arms race develops. FALSE SIGNALS Two obvious ways of making your actions harder to predict are hiding your real intentions and giving out false signals. Both of these, however are still vulnerable to the evolution of even better perceptual mechanisms on the part of the enemy, and so are not evolutionarily stable strategies - in other words, the arms race continues. In many conflicts the only way to stop this escalation is to adopt what game theoriests call a "mixed strategy", which bases decisions on probability. No amount of predictive talent will then prevail. Submarine commanders in the Second World War hit on this idea and resorted to throwing dice to choose random patrol routes and so evade destroyers. In nature, interactions between enemies often wor in a similar way. Sand eels for example, usually react to predators by bunching together and swimming in a fast-moving school. But when threatened in a narrow pool, they behave very differently - the school breaks up and each eel darts about in random directions in an attempt to confuse the predator. Driver and Humphries realised that protean behaviour should be common because of the competitive edge it gives species. Once they began looking, they found examples everywhere. There was the mobbing behaviour of gulls, which dive-bomb intruders from all directions to try to protect nesting colonies. And the herds of impala that burst into a whirlpool of activity, racing and plunging in every direction when disturbed. Proteanism could also make sens of some of the more bizarre interactions between predators and prey. Many birds feign injury to lure the enemy away from a nest full of fledglings, using random changes in speed and direction to balance their aims of drawing attention away from their young and esuring their own survival. Another puzzle - why moths lizards and mice have mock convulsions when attaked - makes sense as a way of throwing a predator off its stride. Competitive situations also bring out the Proteus in humans, but when biologists looked at people, they noticed an important difference between us and other animals - our competitors tend to be other humans. Geoffrey Miller, a psychologist at the University College London recently highlighted this and suggested that this refinement in behaviour in our ancestors is key to our unique cognitive style. Our talent for thining randomly may even be a source of the creative flare that sets humans apart from other animals. Miller's ideas build on the theory of Machiavellian intelligence, which proposes that the main driving force in the evolution of human intelligence was the need to predict and manipulate the behaviour of other humans. The special cognitive capacities that evolved to deal with the social environment have been dubbed social intelligence. This includes calculated deception and its detection, but not protean behaviour. Miller argues that in common with many other animals, our monkey-like ancestors had a basic ability to act randomly that they evolved to outwit predators. But during the transition from monkeys to apes to early hominids, this protean capacity was boosted by positive feedback from social intelligence, as outwitting our fellow humans became more important thatn outwitting other animals. As a result, he claims, proteanism plays a pivotal role in social intelligence. RANDOM RAGE Miller gives the following example to illustrate why protean behaviour would have evolved. Suppose our ancestors could have adopted one of two strategies for setting their anger threshold - the point at which they lose their temper. In the "Old Faithful" strategy, the anger threshold is fixed. Those who adopt this strategy get angry only if an insult exceeds some predetermined level of annoyance. In the "Mad Dog" strategy, on the other hand, the anger threshold varies randomly. Sometimes a big insult does not generate a response, but sometimes a small insult does. Which strategy would have been more effective? If you are using Old Faithful, others quickly leanr what they can get away with, so they constantly push you to the limit. But against the Mad Dog strategy any insult, however slight, might trigger retaliation. Furthermore, the person using this strategy does not have to waste time and effort punishing every small insult, because the uncertainty does most of the work. Flare up for no apparent reason every now and then, and people will tend to tiptoe around you. So Mad Dog is much more effective way of outwitting your competitors. "This might shed some light on the otherwise inexplicable nature of moods," says Miller. When people explode over a minor insult that they would normally have laughed off, we assume that some particular event has triggered their bad mood. Miller, however, suggests that some moods may not be caused by any specific stimulus. "They may simply be randome alterations of our emotional state," he says. "The tendency to have such random mood changes could be a form of protean behaviour that evolved to make us less predictable and so less easy to exploit." But are we really natural born randomisers? Until a few years ago, most psychologists thought that humans were incapable of truly random behaviour. Dozens of studies seemed to confirm the view that producing a random series of responses is difficult, if not impossible for humans. But most of these experiments involved placing people in very artificial non-competitive situations. often, the researcher simply asked an isolated subject to write down a series of numbers with an instruction such as "be as random as possible". If proteanism in humans evolved as a way of outwitting other humans, as Miller argues, then people's failure to generate randome numbers in these situations is not surprising. "Psychologists failed to tap into our natural randomising abilities because they didn't expose subjects to the social games where those abilities evolved," says Miller. So in 1992, two Israeli psychologiests set out to test people in face-toface competition. David Budescu of the University of Haifa and Amnon Rapaport of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem got people to play a game called matching pennies. The rules are simple. Two players start with an equal number of coins. Each turn, both players simultaneously place a coin on the table between them. If the coins match (head-heads or tails-tails), player A keeps both coins; if not, player B keeps them. Though the players have opposite objectives, they both benefit from being able to predict what the other person will do next, and from making their own moves hard to predict. Mathematically, the best strategy is to pick heads and tails with equal probability in a truly random series. Then over a long period of play, your contestant cannot gain the advantage. And this is exactly what Budescu and Rapaport found. The sequences of heads and tails generated by the two players came very close to true mathematical randomness, even though the players were given no instructions to that effect. Another indication that randomness is an innate ability comes from teh work of Allen Neuringer of Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He has shown that humans can learn to generate random sequences when given feedback. In one experiment Neuringer asked students to generate a random series of a hundred pairs of 1s and 2s at a computer termina. He then told the students how well they had done, measuing their performance by whether, for example, the series included approximately equal amounts of 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2. In the first trial, the series was always nonrandom, but after several trials, the students performances improved to the point that their series could not be distinguished from those generated by a computer. A rat can learn to press a lever if you give it food as a reward, so is it surprising that students learn to generate random numbers? Yes, says Miller. The rat's behaviour is an example of conditioning - give it feedback and it will learn a new trick. But conditioning works by gradually elminating random variation. "It could never reinforce randomness itself," he says. This leads him to conclude that there must be some innate randomising mechanism in the mind. "A roulette wheel in the head" is the metaphor used by John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex. "All sorts of processes can generate effectively random series, so there is nothing bizarre about the idea that the brain might be able to do so," he says. Many animals seem to have this mental roulette wheel but, argues Miller, by refining its abilities humans have developed a mechanism that is capable of more than simply outwitting enemies. Our super-protean capacity is the basis for our inventiveness and artistic creativity, he says. "Proteanism provides a key element of creativity that other mental mechanisms lack - the capcity for rapid, unpredictable generation of highly variable alternatives," says Miller. Studies of human creativity often emphasises this element. Without it, for example, there would be no brainstorming. And in many forms of art, from music to comedy, coming up with a new twist on an old theme or confounding an audience's expectations is the key to success. The prevailing view is that human creativity came about as a lucky accident, through the increasing overlap of cognitive capacities designed for other functions. Ecological intelligence evolved to meet the complex demans of foraging for food in the savannah, technical intelligence developed with our tool-making skills, and social intelligence with group living. In a recent book, Steven Mithen, an archaeologist at the University of Reading, argued that in the early hominid mind these intellectual specialities were walled off from one another like the chapels of an early cathedral. He claims that the modern mind evolved only with the collapse of these mental divisions and the development of more general cognitive capacities. CREATIVE SPUR The problem with this view, says Miller, is that it is at odds with one of the main features of natural selection - that it tends to lead to increased specialisation rather than increased generalisation. Miller's theory, however requires no appeal to increasingly general mechanism. On the contrary, an innate randomising mechanism could well be very specialised way of generating novel ideas. Miller speculates that it might work by amplifying the quantum noise in synaptic activity. Alternatively, it could work in the same way the computers generate random numbers: producing pseudo-randomness by feeding the numbers it generates back into the program that is too complex to be worked out by and outsider. According to the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis, creativity is a spin-off from social intelligence alone. The idea is that our ancestors first evolved to cope with savannah life, then learnt to exploit their environment using tools, and finally perfect the art of social living. It was only then that creativity really took off. But until now, nobody has come up with a plausible explanation of showing how this might have happened. Miller's theory could have the answer by showing how proteanism evolved in the social setting, and them making the link between radomness and creativity. Evolutionary theoriests have tended to see evolutionary adaption as a process that increases order and complexity. Natural selection was thought to build improbable regularities from random disorder. Protean behaviour defies this simple view - it is at once random and adaptive, chaotic and yet the result of selection. No wonder it took biologists so long to see it. ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:42:02 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement In einer eMail vom 04.10.98 14:10:39 MEZ, lois proyect wrote.schreiben Sie: << 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. >> Always the same dirty trick. Name any cultural value in history which was developed in the struggle for progress - Louis Proyect will find a quotation where Hitler or some similar scum paid lip service to it. But not the cultural values will be discredited in this way, only L. Pr. will. BTW Thanks for acknowledging that >Bourgeois society has already made great strides in breaking down homophobic attitudes. That was appr. what I tried to use in the argument with Yoshie, when I mentioned the monotonous pervasive propaganda for sexual perversion by our imperialist mass media. Perhaps she will take from you. Krixel ***************************************** Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 13:49:20 -0400 From: "Charles Brown" Subject: Re: The Gay Question [was Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT] I have just been catching up on this long thread. Comrade Welch makes a point I have been getting ready to write. A funny thing about the question that Klo keeps pressing - is homosexuality natural or unnatural ? - is that in other areas of life sometimes the natural is considered "good" and desirable and sometimes the natural is considered "bad" and undesirable. Thus, categorizing homosexuality as natural or unnatural does not exactly settle the issue. Welch puts the issues well below. Surely, emailing is not natural in the sense that it is instinctive. Yet , in this regard as unnatural, it is like flying in airplanes, builiding pyramids and the vast majority of great accomplishments of human history. Speaking English is not natural, but we don't consider it a vice for that reason. Most of civilization is considered superior because it is above the natural , that is UN-natural. Are the paintings in the Sistene Chapel natural ? No. Is Calculus or Einstienian physics natural ? No. Yet, suddenly with homosexuality, it is labeled a vice because it "is" unatural. Thus, suppose somehow it were determined that some or most homosexuality is predominantly a learned enjoyment .Why is it not categorized with speaking a language or being able to fly in airplanes or calculus, all also learned and not instinctive activities ? Incest on the other hand, must be the result of a natural inclination. Otherwise, why must there be a cultural taboo against it ? If it was unnatural to have incest, there would be no need for a cultural taboo, because people would just naturally not do it. Thus , in the case of incest the natural is considered a vice, something to be prohibited. The unnatural practice of not having sex with certain people is considered the way things should be. On human nature, I don't agree with those who act as if it is inappropriate to use the term. Humans are an animal species. We do have natural requirements that must be met for individual and the species to survive. We also have natural instincts. However, unlike other animal species, we also have culture and history which sublate, preserve and overcome, our instincts. In a sense, the pattern and shifting pattern of this contradictory relationship between culture and nature is what human history is all about. But for this thread, it is important to note that for humans neither the natural nor the super or un - natural way is the definiitive human or "best" way to be. Thus, categorizing homosexuality as natural or supernatural or anatural does not settle the issue as Klo thinks , I believe. This is especially true in modern society, where fertility is not a problem of perpetuating a group, as it might have been for very small groups of the distant past. In those cases, differential fertility may have impacted the Darwinian survival ability of a group. Even there bisexuality would not necessarily diminish fertility. Charles Brown >From the market to the Marxit >>> David Welch 10/03 9:48 PM >>> 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: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 14:54:52 -0400 From: "Charles Brown" To: Subject: Re: Nature was (Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT]) Klo, If you are not implying some sense of "good" or " bad", why do you mention punishment below ? You seem to say homosexuality should not be punished if it is natural, i.e. instinctive and not learned. But that implies it should be punished with the goal of stopping it if it is not natural , but rather learned. The goal of stopping it implies in some sense that it would be "bad". Secondly, most human conduct is unnatural. We know this because we constantly contrast ourselves (favorably) with animals. So, even if homosexuality is in some sense determined to be unnatural or supernatural or anatural, why is it not categorized with say doing calculus, which is unatural or super-natural too ? In other words, most conduct that is not genetically based is not considered a sickness, for example, mathematics, building bridges, music, speaking English, etc. Do you follow me ? None of these is genetically caused. But we consider them the highest of accomplishments not sicknesses. Human nature is things like the fact that if we don't eat we will die. Human nature is unique in that it is especially capable of transcending itself. We have culture. Thus, most of human history has been accomplishing things that transcend our limited natural selves. For example, we cannot naturally fly. It is not part of human nature. Yet it is considered a great advance, not a perversion, that we have invented the airplane. In general, this a central contradiction of human existence. You say whether or not other animals are doing an act is important in deciding whether it is acceptable. Yet, often an act is considered unacceptable because it is "beastlike" , that is like an animal. Furthermore, many human institutions are considered not only acceptable, but virtuous because animals cannot do them (see above). Animals can't write poetry. Is it acceptable or not ? Charles Brown >From the market to the Marxit >>> kloDMcKinsey writes James Farmelant wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:23:00 +0000 kloDMcKinsey > 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] > > ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 20:29:13 +0000 Subject: L-I: "Getting Laid" "Getting Laid" Like Marie Antoinette of old, Louis Proyect has made this prescription for us: "Get Laid". And all will be well; we will reach the promised land. And the feminist Yoshie Furuhashi has levelled the charge of "homophobe" on Frederick Engels who criticized the practice of "boy-love" of the ancient Greeks (a society based on wholesale slavery). Which was, in all probability, a hedonistic practice of sexual coercion since it was a relation between a man and a minor. Ah, what times we live in today, comrades! Times when the trash and filth of the ancient and modern bourgeois epochs are held up as glorious and exemplary examples pointing towards the sexual `liberation' of the proletariat. In all of this, sex and the sexual act are looked at totally from the point of view of consumption, performed within the conjugal sheets of the bedroom. Separated completely from the social relations of the production process, culture and ideology which partly gave birth to it and influenced our various needs and desires. In this view, sex is to be considered as a commodity, a thing to be purchased (explicitly or implicitly) for giving oneself pleasure (i.e. satisfy a need). Like we go and buy fruits, vegetables, coffee, etc, many of them coming from far-away lands. And we hardly ever give a thought to their point of origin or to the entire process that has brought it to the super-market shelf and finally into our refrigerators. But it is precisely within the bedroom where the secret of the bourgeois marriage relation or `free' love is to be found. And when the mystery is finally understood, it is revealed to be nothing but a commercial, an exchange relation. That's why bourgeois marriage (or its other variant called `free love' or `living together') is essentially legalized prostitution - a form of relation which has led and will invariably lead to the sexual servitude of the woman in stark contrast to the socialist vision of a "voluntary union among equals". In the industrialized rich countries, there is some material basis for making the love `free' - the incorporation of women into the workplace, affirmative action, pregnancy leave, health benefits and so on although some of these are being whittled away now. In the poor countries, there is almost no material base which will make love `free' for the majority of the population under the current order. In fact, if the bourgeois form of `free love' is forcibly imposed, it can lead to social and economic catastrophes in the society that will lead to even greater inequality and disequilibrium. In the rarified world of the academy, which has screened in people with more or less similar class and educational backgrounds, again there is a basis for love to be `free', i.e. a voluntary union of equals. However, due to the great unevenness engendered by capitalism in both economic development and in the mental development of human beings, this luxury which Louis Proyect cites, is not available to the majority of humanity. This especially becomes clear to those rare souls who cross the class line in marriage. For once the mists of the initial euphoria are cleared, the reality strikes as hammer blows. The spouse, without the education, without the resources to give herself/himself economic and cultural freedom and function as an equal, becomes like a noose with a lodestone around the neck of the one who does, while the latter, often lives of her labor. This highly unequal situation drags both of them down, leading to mutual recrimination and a soul-less marriage. Louis P had implicitly recognized this aspect himself when he had contemptuously remarked earlier on Bill Clinton's proclivity to go after women of the `cheap' variety. This is one of the places where the cruelty and inhumanity of bourgeois rule which denies education and economic opportunities to the majority of people is to be felt - at least if you are a thinking person. So Louis Proyect formulates his `glass of water' concept as follows: >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. While here is old Lenin whom Louis P has referred to as a batty Puritan: --------------------- "I consider the famous 'glass-of-water' theory as completely un-Marxist and, moreover, as anti-social. It is not only what nature has given but also what has become culture, whether of a high or low level, that comes into play in sexual life. Engels pointed out in his Origin of the Family how significant it was that the common sexual relations had developed into individual sex love and thus became purer. The relations between the sexes are not simply the expression of a mutual influence between economics and a physical want deliberately singled out for physiological examination. It would be rationalism and not Marxism to attempt to refer the change in these relations directly to the economic basis of society in isolation from its connection with the ideology as a whole. To be sure, thirst has to be quenched. But would a normal person normally lie down in the gutter and drink from a puddle? Or even from a glass whose edge has been greased by many lips? But the social aspect is more important than anything else. The drinking of water is really an individual matter. But it takes two people to make love and a third person, a new life, is likely to come into being. This deed has a social complexion and constitutes a duty to the community. As a Communist I have no liking at all for the 'glass-of-water' theory, despite its attractive label: 'emancipation of love.' Besides, emancipation of love is neither a novel nor a communistic idea. You will recall that it was advanced in fine literature around the middle of the past century as 'emancipation of the heart'. In bourgeois practice it materialised into emancipation of the flesh. It was preached with greater talent than now, though I cannot judge how it was practiced. Not that I want my criticism to breed asceticism. That is farthest from my thoughts. Communism should not bring asceticism, but joy and strength, stemming, among other things, from a consummate love life. Whereas today, in my opinion, the obtaining plethora of sex life yields neither joy nor strength. On the contrary, it impairs them. This is bad, very bad, indeed, in the epoch of revolution." -------------------------------------- Ah, so far away the sexual `liberators' are from Lenin and so close to ........Daniel Ortega! A leader of the Sandinistas, and Louis P's ex-hero, who is alleged to have molested his step daughter from a young age. Next we turn to the abstruse meanderings of Professor Carrol Cox on the subject of "hedonism". The good professor is taken in by the origins and connotations of this word (i.e. the form) while what he should have done is looked at its concrete practice (i.e. content). For example, as manifested in the cruel orgiastic parties of the Indian maharajas (kings) of old. Or those that occur in the brothels and harems of the Sheikhs of the Middle East into whose bowels flow women and children (sexual commodities) from the poor countries of the third world. Or those that take place in the great mansions of Hollywood and in the massage parlors and elite clubs of New York City under the aegis of `free love' under shimmering chandeliers and amidst gardens with water fountains. While outside the glass and oak-paneled walls, millions and millions of the dirty and disheveled folk press in on all sides with their worn-out bodies and callused hands. Those, whom the anthropologist Eric Wolf called the `people without history', and who look on in wonder and amazement at the tantalizing and delectable items offered by the bourgeois, all sold under the banner of `free love' and `free sex'. But who somehow instinctively realize in their hearts that all of this is beyond their reach. A beautiful hostess in a black velvet gown which shows up all the contours of her magnificent physique flashes a welcome smile. She has very white teeth and she asks in a throaty voice: "Would you like a drink, sir?" Aeons ago, in the gathering gloom in the park of a another city, a fat coarse woman with hard eyes, a woman who had been in the business a long time, had similarly asked: "Would you like a trick, sir?" Two events, vastly separated in time and space, yet basically having the same content. Dusk descends on New York City. The street lamps are lit and the twinkling skyscrapers beckon with their cold light. Amidst the raucous horns of the cars and the pungent smell of exhaust, the crowd overflows all around charged with an energy that betrays a certain wantonness. Surrounded by the glow of neon lights, the huge billboard in Times Square lights up. Comrade Lenin's face, like in the mural by Diego Riviera, appears momentarily. And then vanishes. To be replaced by the faces of Diane Sawyer, Cokie Roberts and Barbara Walters - smiling the synthetic smile of the newly `liberated' capitalist woman - all harlots of the ruling class. In a theater in a side street, they are showing the famous trilogy of the great Indian film director, Satyajit Ray. Apu and his sister Durga are playing in the rice fields, their innocent faces staring in wonder as a train drawn by a steam engine rolls by in the distance. The train that is a symbol of turbulent times to come and of a changing era. In a slow dissolve, their little figures disappear to be replaced by the loud and harsh 20th century technometrics of Steven Spielberg, the pouting face and swayings of the material girl Madonna as she sings to us of 'liberation', about whom many a scholarly tome has been written, and the wild gyrations of Michael Jackson. Suddenly, the madman in the story "The Haunted Stones" by Rabindranath Tagore, one of the best that India has given to the world, appears out of nowhere. He is beating a cymbal while he shouts: "It's all lies, it's all an illusion, it is all an illusion!". And then, he too vanishes into the darkness. Come comrades, let us all partake of this elixir which will transport us to the shores of Nirvana! Down with old-fashioned batty Leninism! Long Live Manhattan Marxism! Woody (`I am in love with my step-daughter') Allenn ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:36:05 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: Engels' "sex-love" and the incomprehensive Yoshie I'm forwarding the following contribution to the current debate by a comrade who is not on the list, but interests himself with the debate. Yoshie ((furuhashi.1@OSU.EDU (Yoshie Furuhashi) )) wrote: >While Engels was no defender of the rights of >homosexuals--in his time the terms hemosexual and >heterosexual had yet to exist--and he made some >homophobic comments as well as had heterosexist >assumptions, he wasn't such a simpleton as to believe >that sexuality was totally _ahistorical_. For >instance, he wrote: >Thus the history of the family in primitive times >consists in the progressive narrowing of the circle, >originally embracing the whole tribe, within which the >two sexes have a common conjugal relation. The >continuous exclusion, first of nearer, then of more and >more remote relatives, and at last even of relatives by >marriage, ends by making any kind of group marriage >practically impossible. Thus the history of the family >in primitive times consists in the progressive narrowing >of the circle, originally embracing the whole tribe, >within which the two sexes have a common conjugal >relation. The continuous exclusion, first of nearer, >then of more and more remote relatives, and at >last even of relatives by marriage, ends by making any >kind of group marriage practically impossible. Finally, >there remains only the single, still loosely linked >pair, the molecule with whose dissolution marriage >itself ceases. This in itself shows what a small part >individual sex-love, in the modern sense of the word, >played in the rise of monogamy. (emphasis mine) >In other words, what Engels called 'sex-love' (in our >modern parlance sexuality) is a historical phenomenon-- >not a product of 'human nature' used in a static sense. The Text until "...rise of monogamy." is a quote from Engels. Yoshie doesn't understand Engels at all or doesn't want to understand him, what is shown by his (or her) comment. Y. mixes up forms of marriage, sexuality and individual sex-love. Engels examined historical changing of s o c i a l f o r m s of sexual relations. What he calls 'sex-love' or, more exactly quoted, 'individual sex-love' (in German: "individuelle Geschlechtsliebe"), is not at all an old fashioned term for sexuality. It is the feeling not to be able to live without the beloved, to love this one and to want to be loved by this one also. That's it what Engels means. In his work he describes, that the institution of marriage originally did not have much to do with individual sex- love, that sexuality w i t h o u t individual sex-love originally was the rule of marriage. In his work "The Origin of Family..." Engels without any doubt recognizes it as a great progress if today it is seen as the ideal that man and woman should be together as a couple only voluntarily and based on mutual (sex-)love. It is of significance if a vehement defender of homosexuality does not understand that. By no means this person can quote Engels as a witness. Without any doubt it is reactionary to put "homosexuality" even nearly on the same stage as the positive ideal of (sex-)love between man and woman. Engels would not have used a term like "heterosexuality", even if it had been common in his time. In its pure sense sexuality means the relation between sexes, between man and woman. So the term "heterosexuality" is just saying the same thing twice over and only is a sophistic trick in order to let the term "homosexuality" (would you also call masturbation "monosexuality"?) appear better. Finally, there are not only some, as Yoshie says, "homophobic" comments by Engels. Wherever he wrote about it he made disparaging remarks about it, but he did not make so many remarks because it was a dismissed question at that time. People like me would do the same if the most rotten forces of imperialism would not try to put this aberration of sexual urge on the same stage as normal sexuality. W.Gerhard ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:36:07 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: KPD on sexuality, Bebel on homosexuality „Sven Buttler" wrote at Sun, 4 Oct: "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."" What do you want to prove by this, except that you did not find a piece in the KPD program that deals with homosexuality? Tell the list which program, of which time and of which KPD your are speaking. What you quote proves nothing. But I give you a counterexample. August Bebel the leader of the old Social Democracy in Germany strongly spoke against homosexuality. He called homosexuality „wiedernatürlich" (against nature) and „Perversitäten". You can read this for example in his well-known book "Women and Socialism", page 238, Edition: Dietz Verlag Berlin 1974, in the "Zwölftes Kapitel Die Prostitution - eine notwendige soziale Institution der bürgerlichen Welt ," under "5.Verbrechen gegen die Sittlichkeit und Geschlechtskrankheiten". . Klas Ber ***************************************** Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 18:04:01 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement Krixel: >Always the same dirty trick. Name any cultural value in history which was >developed in the struggle for progress - Louis Proyect will find a quotation >where Hitler or some similar scum paid lip service to it. But not the cultural >values will be discredited in this way, only L. Pr. will. Now this is really interesting. Krixel does not even bother to distinguish his position from Hitler's. What an admission. >That was appr. what I tried to use in the argument with Yoshie, when I >mentioned the monotonous pervasive propaganda for sexual perversion by our >imperialist mass media. Perhaps she will take from you. Bourgeois society did not break down homophobia. Protestors did. The Stonewall riots of the early 70s led to a massive movement of gays and lesbians to defeat anti-homosexual laws. The movement was inspired by the black liberation struggle and many Marxists were deeply involved with it. What happened in the course of this struggle is that bourgeois politicians were forced to accept the gains of the movement. Gay people could not be pushed back into the closet. So what I was saying is that your bizzare little sect is not even up to the standards of the Democratic Party in the United States. You have a position that is similar to Pat Robertson, the Moral Majority and other Christian fundamentalist outfits. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:08:36 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT: A short fundamental statement Krixel@aol.com wrote: >when I >mentioned the monotonous pervasive propaganda for sexual perversion by our >imperialist mass media That's one of the funniest things I've read all day. The mass media are still overwhelmingly heteronormative, as they say. What media market do you live in? Doug ***************************************** Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 21:33:15 -0500 From: Carrol Cox To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: KPD on sexuality, Bebel on homosexuality Krixel@aol.com wrote: blah blah blah It is becoming increasingly hard not to see this gay baiting and fumbling through old texts is other than either sheer desire to disrupt or an instance of gays who having incorporated the social contempt for gays are driven to gay baiting as protective covering. In the last few years various gay publications have outed a number of violently anti-gay congressman and other public figures as themselves closeted gays. Politically, such garbage can come only from those who have in fact despaired (whatever they say to the contrary) of the working class, and hence have changed marxism (or their distorted conception of marxism) into the religion that its bourgeois enemies accuse it of being. It is interesting, in that light, that those they choose to persecute are pretty much the came categories that bourgeois society persecutes. Every religion needs its witches and heretics to burn. Incidentally, the debate over whether homosexuality is "genetic" or "chosen" is a misleading debate. The fact that Jews did not choose to be Jews did not save them from the Holocaust. Claiming genetic causes (whether true or not) blurs the central principles of the rights of working people, and of course 90%+ of the world's gays are working people. I think it time to recognize that gay baiters are, objectively, regardless of their intentions, provacateurs, and their posts should be ignored. Gay baiting is, quite simply, an effort to disarm the working class in its struggle with capital. We don't endlessly argue with Pat Robertson or Bill Clinton, why should we bother to argue with this pack? Carrol ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: marxism@lists.panix.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:42:22 +0000 Subject: L-I: The Silver Dagger The cards are finally on the table. Louis Proyect makes certain slanderous statements below full of personal character assassination which reveals his own theoretical weakness on the matter of how Marxism should address the matter of human sexuality. At the outset, I had clearly stated my own views that I was concerned not with the subject of homosexuality per se but with human sexuality in general. About persecution of homosexuals by the bourgeois state I had made this clear unequivocal statement on Oct 4, 1998 on the leninist-international list: "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." That Louis Proyect should dishonestly and demogogically try to paint me once again as a "homophobe" very much like the reactionary Zionists do with the label of "anti-semitism" to silence all questions and at the same time to bring in all kinds of side issues in order to deflect attention from the main subject, as he does below, should be a lesson to all. An object lesson that is on the tactics and ethics of a person who time and again has loudly proclaimed and given testimony to us about his fidelity to Marxism. But what is this type of 'Marxism' worth, a 'Marxism' which consists mainly of recycling the perambulations of the academic crowd (which has some value in itself), opportunists and revisionists, and further, which does not carry out its practice in a truthful manner? And uses the silver dagger to stab in the back when one's impotence is revealed? After all, it is much easier to make fun of the reactionary outpourings of little groups like MIM, Neue Einheit and individuals like Rolf Martens like for example it is to challenge the racism in a book like 'The Bell Curve'. And what is this fascination of reading on and on and getting more and more book knowledge about esoteric subjects very much like the lust for gold exhibited by the colonizers when in practice use is made of surreptitious or outright lying and deceit by the 'Marxists'? I would rather have the company of a working-class person or a peasant who knows absolutely zero about Marxism but whose heart is in the right place. In fact, that is what is the most important. I had caught Louis Proyect for the first time yesterday on the Leninist-International list trying to use the weapon of "homophobia" to defame and deflect attention from the debate. He did not reply to my post (which I will now forward to Louis Proyect's list so that people will get clarity of what actually went on). Today, he indulges in the same practice on his own list while CLEVERLY not cc-ing it to the leninist-international list which is where the original debate took place. And where his action would not have gone unnoticed since he would have done it a second time. A brief reply to some of his outlandish comments: > Chatterjee, you are really too much. You and your Maoist pals had a falling > out with each other and you come over to other lists to raise the same > garbage that finally caused sensible people to flee M-I. Cuba as a fascist > country, bourgeois homosexual perversions, what have you. This is the > bankrupt politics of the RCP and similar groups, MIM, Neue Einheit, etc. It > has absolutely no attraction to normal people. It is absolutely repellent. > What you write is disgusting and repellent. > So you would like to treat your list as your own private property where only debate is allowed among the repectable folk. That is fine, and this is why in the future, I will not write to your list except perhaps to reply if you make further slanderous accusations. But the leninist-international list does not belong to you. There is an interesting aspect also. You reserve your own substantial contributions for your own list but try to stir up provocations on the leninist-international list which has become something like a playground for you and the one-liners of your cronies like Doug Henwood. In this way, you reveal your contempt for people who do not have the necessary 'respectable' credentials. It is amusing also that you have invented a 'Maoist' grab bag into which you lump individuals and groups of various assorted tendencies.From time to time, you have made derogatory comments about what you call 'Maoism' (without any analysis). But that is not surprising since you still adhere to your Trotskyists beliefs although you try to hide them. I do not recall of ever writing "disgusting and repellent" things about Cuba being a fascist country or of "bourgeois homosexual perversions". What I have maintained is that Cuba is on the road of capitalist restoration and it has given support to the fascist regime of Alberto Fujimori in Peru. And Castro had very warm relations with Indira Gandhi when she was on a murdering spree that killed tens of thousands of socialists and communists. > So instead of cohabitating with fellow Maoists Olaechea and Godena, who > share your homophobia and bizarre analysis of "fascist" Cuba, you try to > foist it on people who fled from it in disgust. > Both Adolfo Olaechea and Louis Godena are not homophobic. That you can utter this lie is once again a pointer. In fact about Adolfo's and my alleged homophobia, Gary Maclennan, who had called me "Adolfo's homophobic henchman" on the old Marxism list some years ago, subsequently made a retraction and offered an apology. At that time too, in order to refute wild charges of "homophobia" that were being tossed around, I had posted material about how in a past life, myself and some others had defended a homosexual friend from persecution from the community. This was when all his other so-called supporters from the liberal bourgeois camp had deserted him. That is when he turned to us for support inspite for the fact that he had formerly opposed us in the past and had sided with the reactionaries. You see Louis, the actual proof of a person's beliefs are tested in action, and not in the flowery deceptive posts they write. As I recall, it was subsequent to this that Gary Maclennan made his retraction. If Gary feels that my post on "Getting Laid", which addressed the hypocrisy of bourgeois sexuality (and was also a rejoinder to your contemptuous Euro-centric prescription of "Go get laid. You might enjoy it.") and nothing else, was homophobic, let him speak up. I will then have to do some serious re-thinking. > You owe it to yourself and the rest of the Internet left to explain the > degeneration of the group you arrived with: Godena, Olaechea, Quispe, Rolf > Martens and company. This is a political tendency that systematically > repels people. When they are finished with people who are not hard-core > Maoists, they begin to bite each other's necks. Godena is over on M-I > ranting against the Jews, while Olaechea has disappeared. You got lonely > over there and you sought out company, you poor chap. > I never arrived with anyone in a planned fashion. You seem to imply some sort of a conspiracy among different people whom you once again put in your 'hard-core' Maoist grab bag (similar to the word 'hard-line' used by the reactionary media). About company, don't worry I got plenty. Only people with a lot of leisure time on their hands can spend several hours a day on the Internet. Most of us have to make a living. It was only to point out your brazeness that I posted the last mailer to your list. I future I will not post on your list except to answers your slanders. > And what do you come up with? The same toxic garbage that you have always > peddled: fascist Cuba, pedophile Ortega (as if this was an expression of > Sandinista politics), gays and lesbians running around scandalizing honest > working people. What a bunch of crap. > You should provide proof of your assertions about 'toxic garbage' about fascist Cuba and homophobia that I "have always peddled". As I said, if one is an opportunist (like Ortega, your hero), then this opportunism WILL INEVITABLY show up in different facets of his behavior, including SEXUAL behavior. Because "Every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of class." - Mao Ze-Dong. So it is not really surprising that the turncoat Ortega (a Sandinista leader who surely influenced its politics) is today revealed to be sexual predator. It is only this peculiar kind of western marxism that you propound (with roots in essentially counter-revolutionary Trotskyism) in which you can separate the political from the personal. > I just want to say a few words on this question of Lenin warning against > libertinism. I took the trouble to track down the context today. You can > find the background in Igor Kon's "Sexuality and Russian History." What > happened is that students in and around the Communist Party were spending > much too much time in bed fucking. The revolution had freed young people's > libidinous energies and they went at it, just like I did in the 60s. Lenin > wanted to reorient them to the tasks of building socialism. He thought that > sex had become an escape from their revolutionary duties. > And was this not clear from Lenin's own words which I cited? Did you have to run to your library and look at some academic textbook to understand what Lenin really meant in second-hand fashion? And yet you referred to Lenin himself as a batty Puritan when you first read him on the leninist-international list on the issue of sexuality in Russia during revolutionary times. And now you proclaim your fidelity to Lenin. Like a chamelon changing colors! It is not necessary to reply to your other insuniations about homophobia which you make in your post. In the future, I may reply only to your slanders, nothing else. You have revealed a certain unprincipled and dishonest facet of your character which is totally at odds with Marxism as it is known in much of the world. And because of this, the contradiction between us has become antagonistic. The poet, Rabindranath Tagore, after trying mightily to build a cultural synthesis between the West and the East, finally failed. Which was revealed in his intense frustration in the autumn of his life. Perhaps, a synthesis, even among people who claim the mantle of Marxism on the two sides of the border, is not possible now or for the substantial future. The philosophical viewpoint towards life is very different although there are some similarities. I guess that is why Mao Ze Dong said "The East wind prevails over the West wind" pointing out the contradiction. You and many others here will not understand this apsect because the upbringing in the West is very homogenous and one-dimensional. Eurocentrism runs in the blood and operates sub-consciously when not overtly. One last thing. From where I come, inspite of other heinous atrocities, I have not heard of Jews and homosexuals being killed, attacked or defamed like they are done in the Judeo-Christian West. It is simply not in the tradition. At least not yet. Maybe, there is a certain toleration in Hinduism, a respect for all forms of life and beliefs, which was pointed out by Swami Vivekananda that is missing in the Western religions.I am proud of that part of our heritage. S. Chatterjee ***************************************** From: "Kerdudo" To: Subject: L-I: RE: KPD on sexuality, Bebel on homosexuality Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:18:54 +0100 i don't know whether the information regarding august babel given by krixel (see below) was inted to mislead people into beleiving that the book discussed was a recent publication by giving the refernce to the 1974 german edition, but just for clarity's sake i think it should be mentioned that it was in fact writen at the turn of the century in 1883. also as far as i am aware. lenin's converstaions with zetkin took place in moscow around 1920 and engels wrote his famous the origin of the family, private property and the state in 1884. whilst at the same time saluting all three for their oustanding analysis of the opression women are subject to and whilst in no way writing them off as great theoricians (which they were), i hardly think that, for example, babel's (1840-1913) nineteenth century moralistic views on sexuality can be taken as a reasonble yardstick for the late 20th century. it would be sad to think that marxist analysis stopped dead with their words. marxism supplies a method for action for transforming society, not a theological book of rules to live our lives by. in my opinion, if we are unable to analyse what's actually going on in today's society, prefering instead to quote what was said over a hundred years ago then i believe this is anything but a marxist approach. i for one do not intend to live my own private sexual life based on whoever bebel happened to think it was best i should sleep with or not. the whole idea is completely ludicrous! if we are unable to ralise that politicians and parties evolve within a given cultural context and that these cultural and social contexts change throughout time and space then i think something is very wrong with the basic approach. to my mind, marxism isn't about just quoting from what lnin, stalin, mao, marx or whomever said within a particular period and within a particvular cukltural context but rather to apply the methodology they used in arriving at those conclusions whilst applying it to current times. for example, would it be reasonable to quote bits from marx and engels regarding imperialism? obviously not - imperialism came about much later as society evolved. i think what we're really talking about here is individual fear of certain social questions, eg. women's oppression, gay rights, black rights and so on which it would appear some people have serious problems accepting and coming to terms with. my final last remark: most gays are workers and therefore should enjoy the same support of their rights as workers, but not only as workers, but also as people oppressed for their sexuality in as much as i beleive that engel's analysis cited above is not only perfectly correct but when applying it to understanding the undelying reasons leading to the oppression of women under capitalism we are actually applying and interpreting (the title of this publication would tend to lead any reader not to assume that women was engel's prior consideration when writing it) and that this same analysis can be applied to explain in clearly marxist terms the origins of gay oppression. i think an impartial reading would lead anyone to the conclusion that gays do not uphold the traditional family structure so necessary for the development and mainatance of capitalist order, but also that dividing the working class based on such questions as women workers versus men workers, gay workers versus straight workers is wholly in the interstets of capitalism. whether homosexuality is actually natural or not is, i beleive, quite far from the point - nor do i believe that human behaviour patterns can be shown to be natural or unantural based on whatever goes on in the animal kingdom. is it natural for felines to pur? do other animals do it? then if not it must be unatural! rubbish. i did not intend to join in this debate as i feel it's not going anywhere useful and i'm getting a bit rired of hearing the same sort of ignorant, reactionary remarks i can go and listen to down at my local on a saturday night. however, as neueu einheit has decided to raise what i bleive to be its thoroughly uggly head i just wanted to manifest my support to all of the reasonable human beings and communists who have taken the trouble to combat such loathsome garbage.i shall make a point of abstaining therefore form any further mailings on this particular subject a) because i'm fairly bored of hearing nothing new over and over again and b) i hardly feel it worth spending my valuable time and energy arguing with such views. neal ---------- > De: Krixel@aol.com > A: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu > Asunto: L-I: KPD on sexuality, Bebel on homosexuality > Fecha: martes 6 de octubre de 1998 2:36 > > > > „Sven Buttler" wrote at Sun, 4 Oct: > "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."" > > > What do you want to prove by this, except that you did not find a piece > in the KPD program that deals with homosexuality? > Tell the list which program, of which time and of which KPD your are speaking. > What you quote proves nothing. > But I give you a counterexample. August Bebel the leader of the old Social > Democracy in Germany strongly spoke against homosexuality. He called > homosexuality „wiedernatürlich" (against nature) and „Perversitäten". > You can read this for example in his well-known book > "Women and Socialism", page 238, Edition: Dietz Verlag Berlin 1974, > in the "Zwölftes Kapitel Die Prostitution - eine notwendige soziale > Institution der bürgerlichen Welt ," under "5.Verbrechen gegen die > Sittlichkeit und Geschlechtskrankheiten". > . > > Klas Ber > > > > ***************************************** From: "Kerdudo" To: Subject: L-I: to the moderators Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:21:31 +0100 i'm not used to appealing to anyone for censorship but i am alarmed to see that the group neue einheit has been allowed to so openly air its view on the question of homosexuality. having been given the right of reply i feel that this is perfectly sufficient. are there any rules regarding attitutes which will not be tolerated on this list beyond a reasonable point, eg. what are we to expect next, to have to defend the fact that blacks are not inately inferior to whites based on brain size or that women should not be allowed to vote? ***************************************** From: "Sven Buttler" To: Subject: L-I: Re: Engels' "sex-love" and the incomprehensive Yoshie Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:15:09 +0200 >I'm forwarding the following contribution to the current debate by a comrade >who is not on the list, but interests himself with the debate. [snip] He better stays off list, we already have enough Nazis here... ***************************************** From: "Ben Seattle" To: Subject: L-I: Homophobia or cluelessness ? -- (was: The Silver Dagger) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 06:20:15 -0700 Siddharth Chatterjee: > If Gary feels that my post on "Getting Laid", ... > was homophobic, let him speak up. I will then > have to do some serious re-thinking. Sid, I am going to comment only because your remark above indicates that you may be willing to consider that you have made errors. My assessment is that you owe an apology to Yoshie Furuhashi, Martin Schreader, Louis Proyect and pretty much the entire readership of L-I and Proyect's list. It is probably an exaggeration for Louis to call you "homophobic". But there have been a number of rash and exaggerated comments made in the course of a discussion that broke out when Neue Einheit attempted to defend their reactionary line on homosexuality. My own attitude, initially, was that Neue Einheit should simply be ignored. It is difficult to build a list if energy and attention automatically flow to the most backward and stupid postings rather than the most advanced and intelligent. But Neue Einheit's extreme backwardness on this issue reflects, to an extent, backward ideas on such questions that have existed in the communist movement for a long time. Homosexual activity was made illegal under Stalin in the 1930's. Partly as a result of this, a relative handful of activists who consider themselves to be communists are confused on this issue even today. This backwardness is reflected in the views of others on L-I and, most likely for this reason, both Yoshie and Louis spent some effort to clarify why communists must defend the rights of homosexuals as part of the defense of the working class against the bourgeosie. Yoshie and Louis brought up historical facts concerning the struggle for gay rights and pointed out the relationship between this struggle and the struggle for democratic rights. Now supposedly you are also in favor of the defense of homosexuals against reactionary culture. But your posts objectively tended to support Neue Einheit. For example you asked Yoshie about "the rights of those who practice incest" as if she owed you some kind of explanation. Then, when others got angry at you, you insisted you were misunderstood. But it is *you* who misunderstand. The position of Neue Einheit on homosexuality must be condemned. *No one* who responds to a post that has "Neue Einheit" in the title thread (as you did) should *leave any doubt* about their position on this. But you don't have a position on this, as far as I can tell. In fact you are as clueless as Klo on this question. Now there is nothing wrong, in itself, with being clueless. I am certainly clueless on a fairly wide range of important questions. What is unfortunate, however, is when people are *aggressively clueless*. Yoshie and Louis are light-years ahead of you on this question so, in my opinion, you would do well to have a little more humility and see and if you can learn something from them. I will also note that you deliberately provoked Martin Schreader, who, whatever his imperfections, is also way ahead of *you* on this question. He lost his cool and called you "scum". You *rejoiced* in this. It may not have been correct for Martin to call you scum. But it was correct for him to point out that you were acting like a jerk. The issue which you should not forget amidst all your moralising about sexuality--is that a list such as this not built solely on the competition of correct ideas against incorrect ones. If we are serious about building lists such as these into powerful weapons against *the bourgeosie* -- we must be relentless in working to bring out--not what is weak in one another--but what is powerful and healthy. Sincerely, Ben Seattle ----//-// 6.Oct.98 ***************************************** From: "Sven Buttler" To: Subject: L-I: Re: KPD on sexuality, Bebel on homosexuality Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:21:22 +0200 Nazi Krixel writes: >„Sven Buttler" wrote at Sun, 4 Oct: >"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."" >What do you want to prove by this, except that you did not find a piece >in the KPD program that deals with homosexuality? Don't you get it, buddy??? ( Homo )Sexuality is considered to be a PRIVATE MATTER - as long as nobodys' rights are violated - as long no physical or psycological violence is used Is that so hard to understand? But I forgot I am talking to a Nazi... I am sorry that we don't deal with all kinds of sexuality ( from above, from below, from the back etc. ) I always thought other issues should be touched, too. But I guess when talking about political programmes you have "Mein Kampf" by comrade Hitler in mind. >Tell the list which program, of which time and of which KPD your are speaking. 8. Party conference, February 1993. >What you quote proves nothing. >But I give you a counterexample. August Bebel the leader of the old Social >Democracy in Germany strongly spoke against homosexuality. He called >homosexuality „wiedernatürlich" (against nature) and „Perversitäten". >You can read this for example in his well-known book >"Women and Socialism", page 238, Edition: Dietz Verlag Berlin 1974, >in the "Zwölftes Kapitel Die Prostitution - eine notwendige soziale >Institution der bürgerlichen Welt ," under "5.Verbrechen gegen die >Sittlichkeit und Geschlechtskrankheiten". . So what??? If they claimed something like this they were wrong. It's that simple. In disgust, Sven Sieh zu das Du Land gewinnst, Du perverses Stück Nazi-Dreck!!!! --- 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/ ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:24:11 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Lenin on Sex: 1 Hello Brett What and whom did you think of when you wrote << I have chosen not to mention this strangers to avoid a rude reply. I think this is a valid topic though. >> Please help me understand. Krixel ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:25:18 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: Why L. Proyect keeps shouting "Nazi!" although even he knows better L. Proyect wrote: >Krixel: >>Always the same dirty trick. Name any cultural value in history which was >>developed in the struggle for progress - Louis Proyect will find a quotation >>where Hitler or some similar scum paid lip service to it. But not the >>cultural >>values will be discredited in this way, only L. Pr. will. >Now this is really interesting. Krixel does not even bother to distinguish >his position from Hitler's. What an admission. I in fact need not bother because to everybody on this list the distinction is clear. The problem is only that people like Louis Proyect are frentically attempting to find something where they could tie up their barrage of abuse. It is pure provocation to move a historical dialectical analysis of homosexuality, of which the Group NEUE EINHEIT is giving some fundamentals, into the fascist corner. Such is the work of people who, at least ideologically, are deeply entangled with imperialism, especially with its present US-dominated configuration. If our views on homosexuality were „fascist“ then Marx’and Engels’ were equally. It is only political weakness which causes L. Proyect (and others) to shout „Nazi“ every moment they meet an argument not fitting into their political schemes. The distinction, apart from that, is clear from every piece my group resp. I personally resp. other comrades contributed to the list so far. For example, the election article („Results From the Election Campaign“), the one which gave rise to the whole debate, contains the following passage: "For the part of the smaller parties, most of them defend positions which are close to those of the Greens, or which make up only one single point, or they defend extreme rightist, historically completely outdated positions and extremely dangerous and fascist positions which may fall back on the whole country. They are unacceptable. The last-named channel the despair about the parliament's parties into a backward and destructive direction. Fighting and de-camouflaging the points where they tie on, thereby fighting their demagogy, will be one of the essential tasks for the immediate future." Who needs even more proof and information is invited to visit our homepage http://www.neue-einheit.com. But there is another distinction which is in fact rather blurred, the distinction between L. Proyect’s views and the liberal anticommunist propaganda of Western imperialism. For example, so far I cannot remember anything but morose remarks by Proyect concerning the revolutionary Soviet Union or China and their political leaders, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, whenever the discussion touches these historical questions. There were other contributions in this debate, meanwhile, which put some question marks behind Proyect’s alleged marxism and his sincerity. I think they are of interest in this respect. I hope that we’ll soon be able to concentrate on the dissens/consens we have with some interesting contributions to this debate about human nature and about sexuality. It is apparently Proyect’s aim to prevent a mutually fruitful debate of the real subjects. Krixel PS: In my last forwarding to the debate "KPD on sexuality, Bebel on homosexuality" I forgot to say in advance that it is a contribution of comrade Klas Ber. ***************************************** To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 12:16:05 -0400 From: Doug Henwood Subject: L-I: help for homos! All you homophobes, sign up! Doug ---- Homosexuals Encouraged To 'Come Out' of Homosexuality NEWPORT NEWS, Va., Oct. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Kerusso Ministries today announced the fourth annual National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day (NCOHD) on October 11. The annual event is a direct counter to the pro-homosexual message of organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Human Rights Campaign and P-FLAG. Michael Johnston, national chair of the event and a former homosexual with AIDS said Monday, "The message from homosexual lobby groups is one of anger and despair. They consistently blame everyone else for their misery and offer no hope to the adult or young person struggling with homosexual desires. All they can say is 'give up and give in.' The NCOHD project offers a different message, a message of compassion and hope." "There are thousands of men, women and young people who have rejected a homosexual identity and gone on to live healthy normal lives," Johnston said. He readily acknowledges that the walk out of homosexuality can be a difficult one. "These individuals desperately need to know that they are not alone and that many are willing to guide and encourage them." Johnston walked away from homosexuality in 1988 after living for eleven years as an active homosexual. Johnston said, "It is unfortunate that homosexual lobby groups continue to deny and even work to suppress the truth about so many who have walked away from homosexuality. It is cruel and anything but compassionate. They have convinced many, including many in the media, to believe a lie. This week we will take the truth to the streets to help the hurting. We will do it one community at a time, one heart at a time; that they may know the truth and the truth will set them free." Events surrounding the October 11 observance of the National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day will span the country from coast to coast. Activities will include educational and ministerial outreach in local communities, churches and on college campuses. Radio specials highlighting the stories of former homosexuals are scheduled for hundreds of radio stations across the country as well as television broadcasts in many markets. National Sponsors include: American Family Association, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Christian Action League of North Carolina, Christian Coalition of Alaska, Christian Coalition of Colorado, Christian Coalition of Washington, Christian Family Network, Citizens for Community Values, Colorado for Family Values, Concerned Women for America, Coral Ridge Ministries/Center for Reclaiming America, CrossOver Ministries, Exodus International (North America), Family Defense Council, Family Research Council, Family First, Family Watch, Inc., Focus on the Family, Foundation for Christian Alternatives, Freedom At Last, Institute for Media Education, Liberty Counsel, Living Hope, Love of God Outreach, Metanoia Ministries, Mission America, Mothers for Good Government, New Creation Ministries (California), New Creation Ministries (Hawaii), New Hope Ministries, Outpost, Regeneration, Renew America, Stop Promoting Homosexuality America, The National Legal Foundation, Transforming Congregations, Washington for Traditional Values and Washington Opposed to Pro-Homosexual Policies. SOURCE Kerusso Ministries ***************************************** From: "E.C.Apling" To: Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:46:00 +0100 After being away from the internet for a few days and then wading through piles of e-mail with the above subject heading - (tho' what the discussion has to do with the German elections escapes me! - or I forgot, the thread started with something about the Greens...) I feel just like making a short comment. After a while I got fed up with repetitiousness so only red to Sunday 4th October, anything contributed on Monday is still beyond my ken!. As one who was very much in favour of the Wolfenden Report (Royal Commission on Homosexuality chaired by Sir Jorn Wolfenden, [1906-1985], then Vice-Chancellor of Reading University and later made a life peer, Baron Wolfenden], which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in UK, I must say that for the last decade or so I have been more and more disturbed, annoyed, scandalised, sickened (can't think of any more words at the moment), by the brazen displays, descrptions, advocacy (etc. etc) of homosexuality continually confronting us on TV and the media generally. This is all old hat - homosexuality was decriminalised in 1957 - what the hell do they want to be going on about it still in 1998? Sexuality, in whatever form, is a *private* matter - it is disgusting to parade advocacy of some form of it in the streets. It matters not to me what xxxx-sexuality an individual is - it is how they relate to other people in general social matters, in discussion, in politics, in work etc. etc. by which I judge them, and by which they *should* be judged. Anyone who continually shouts out that "I'm a homosexual" or "I'm gay" - or even on the contrary (but I have never heard anyone do it) "Im heterosexual" - puts him/herself immediately beyond the pale, and is to be resolutely avoided (and how to understand how anyone can put forward "defence of "gay" rights" as a revolutionary slogan completely defeats me - at least with regard to UK or anywhere where "gays" are not criminalised). By the way - homosexuality *does* exist in other mammals, and it appears the "gays" are generally accepted - but then none of them go round shouting about it!! I suppose I really hope for an end to this thread, but am nevertheless doing something to prolong it!! Regards Paddy Mailto:E.C.Apling@btinternet.com ***************************************** From: "Brett Murphy" To: Subject: L-I: Re: Bonobos Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:25:28 -0700 And what was that all about in a few sentences? Brett ***************************************** Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 14:28:27 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: L-I: Gays and the Left Gays and the Left: Scratching the Surface The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864-1935), by John Lauritsen & David Thorstad, (Novato, CA: Times Change Press, 1995), revised edition, $9.95 paper. Gay Men and the Sexual History of the Political Left, edited by Gert Hekma, Harry Oosterhuis & James Steakley, (Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press, 1995), $24.95 paperback. Reviewed by Peter Drucker THE CONTEMPORARY MOVEMENT for lesbian/gay liberation was born out of the ferment of the New Left. Its leftist roots were openly acknowledged. Theorists such as Dennis Altman, John D'Emilio, David Fernbach and Mario Mieli all identified with one socialist or communist current or another. All acknowledged their debt to Marxism as well as feminism and psychoanalysis. Times have changed. Lesbian/gay movements have grown and won some significant victories in the past quarter-century, while the socialist left has shrunk to a shadow of what it was. Unsurprisingly, nowadays lesbian/gay spokespeople and theorists are less likely to identify with the anti-capitalist left than they used to be. Back to Basics Lauritsen's and Thorstad's roots go back to the U.S. Socialist Workers Party. They broke with that group in the mid-1970s when the word came down from its leadership that lesbian/gay oppression was only a "secondary" contradiction for which members' energies often could not be spared. But the 1995 edition of "The Early Homosexual Rights Movement" contains few major changes. Like the 1974 version, it treats the pioneers of lesbian/gay emancipation with only mildly critical sympathy and stresses the bright side of their alliance with leftist parties. This makes the book useful reading for anyone who wants to begin by grasping a few basic facts. For example: in the years before the First World War, the German Social Democratic Party was in the forefront of the fight to repeal that country's anti-gay Paragraph 175. Eduard Bernstein defended Oscar Wilde (himself an iconoclastic socialist) in the pages of the SPD's theoretical journal, "Die Neue Zeit." The Bolsheviks repealed anti-gay laws when they took power in Russia, and supported the pro-gay World League for Sexual Reform throughout the 1920s. The German Social Democratic and Communist parties were the gay movement's best allies in the 1920s. These basic facts are worth reiterating, if only because some recent scholarship has managed to overlook them. There is another side to the story. Trained in the Trotskyist tradition, Lauritsen and Thorstad have a keen eye for the (many) failings of social democrats and Stalinists. The German Social Democrats succumbed to the temptation to gay-bait when samesex scandals among the German empire's aristocratic elite emerged; Social Democrats and Communists succumbed again when Nazi SA head Ernst Roehm was available as a homosexual target. Stalin re-criminalised homosexuality in the USSR in 1934. Communists in many countries obediently turned their back on their earlier stands and began to identify gays with bourgeois decadence and even fascism. By the time lesbian/gay liberation went though its resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s, an uphill battle had to be fought against anti-gay prejudices inside much of the left. Lauritsen's and Thorstad's focus on Germany helps them avoid noting that the left in other countries, like the United States and the Netherlands, fell short even of the German left's mixed record. Beginning their account late in the nineteenth century saves them from mentioning Marx's and Engels' homophobia, which surfaced not only in private letters but in published writings. Ending in the 1930s saves them from discussing the shortcomings of later, even anti-Stalinist Marxists. Ambivalent left tradition "Gay Men and the Sexual History of the Political Left" has been put together with more scholarly thoroughness. It benefits from two decades of accumulating research, and suffers from no inhibitions about exposing the left's shortfalls. The result is a set of valuable investigations. The strong development of gay studies in Dutch universities (where two of the three editors are based) is well reflected. The one contribution that focuses on the Netherlands (by Gert Hekma) is a useful demonstration of just how ambivalent early socialists were about sexuality. The anthology also does well to look at several different left traditions - "utopian" socialism, anarchism and Marxism - in a single volume. For anyone who wants to learn about topics as varied as how Andre Gide squared his homosexuality with sympathy for the USSR, what the early Frankfurt School had to say about gays, or the complementary roles of East Germany's Lutheran Church and Stasi (secret police) in creating a gay movement there, this book is a good starting place. Yet most of the authors are hampered by three major flaws in their approach. First, though many of them clearly have leftist sympathies, their methods owe little to the left. They work as empiricist historians; few of them seem to see how Marxism, feminism or any other radical paradigm can help them analyse societies. Second, the book as a whole is marred by a double standard, in which Marxist traditions are more harshly judged than others. Third, few of the authors have learned much from social historians' discoveries about the lives of ordinary gay men and lesbians, who after all made up past movements and parties. Public vs. private In their introduction, the editors say that "socialism is singled out for particular attention here because its project was, and is, to fulfil the emancipatory goal of the Enlightenment: the universal liberation of humankind from oppressive ideologies and exploitative social structures." (7) This argument for holding the left to high standards is absolutely right. The editors are also right to criticise socialist credulousness about "scientific" biology and medicine, which contradicted the left's distinctive emphasis on historical and social factors, and to criticise socialist praise of working-class "manliness", which ignored the female half of the working class. But they fail to grapple with the difference between abstract application of principles and a project of liberation carried out by concrete historical agents emerging from really existing capitalism. Ultimately, when the editors appeal to the classical liberal distinction between public and private realms, they are judging the left by criteria that are alien to the left. "The private sphere has enjoyed far less protection under socialist regimes than under liberal ones," they say.(16) They do note in passing that liberals (in the European sense of constitutionalist, secular free-market advocates) were inpractice usually even more anti-gay than leftists. But they fail to explain why. In fact the liberal private-public distinction leaves straight male power in the family unchallenged. Women's and lesbian/gay liberation require transforming the family in ways that are bound to "interfere" in "private" life. The authors' not very profound methodology sometimes limits their predictive ability. For example, in his article on contemporary France, Jan Willem Duyvendak moves beyond his earlier work in describing the difficult "balance between desires and interests" that gay movements need to strike.(370) But lacking a deep analysis of how much those desires and interests are repressed in France today, he predicts continuing demobilisation of French gays - who in fact began mobilising in steadily more impressive numbers before the ink on his article was dry. [see "We might as well die shouting" and "Vulnerability and resistance," International Viewpoint #287, April 1997]. The book's liberal critique of the left's sexual politics is limited mainly to Marxists. Saskia Poldervaart's essay on utopian socialists and Walter Fahnders' on German anarchists are not just sympathetic, but almost wholly uncritical accounts, citing inspiring passages from their subjects' works without paying much attention to the reality of their movements It is valuable to recover these lost voices of sexual radicalism, to note sex-radical insights in Fourier that Marx dismissed, or anarchist pro-gay positions that were better than those of contemporary Marxists. Anarchist Hubert Kennedy exposes Marx's homophobic attacks on gay German Lassallean leader Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, though without shedding much light on the issues between Marxists and Lassalleans that probably concerned Marx more. Richard Cleminson's careful, historically informed research on the Spanish anarchist "Revista Blanca" sets a higher standard, however, in an article that shows how anarchist puritanism gave way in the 1930s to greater tolerance. The articles focusing on Marxists mostly fall short of Cleminson's achievement. In fact, of the ten contributions that deal mainly with avowed Marxists, only two or three show much knowledge of Marxism. Four deal largely with Stalinist regimes or spies; twenty years after Lauritsen's and Thorstad's basic exposition, these articles make little distinction between Stalinist sexual politics and earlier Marxist positions. Laura Engelstein, writing about Soviet legislation, ends up asking in bewildered ignorance, "Why did homosexuality escape the law between 1917 and 1934? That is the still obscure and intriguing tale."(173) Harry Oosterhuis, who chronicles anti-gay statements in Social Democratic and Communist anti-fascist propaganda of the 1930s with justified indignation, blames the homophobia on Marxism as such; he either does not know or prefers to forget that earlier socialist positions were more pro-gay. David Thorstad, who contributes the one article dealing withthe U.S. left, is of course knowledgeable about Marxism. He lays out the reactionary positions of the CP and Maoists at the time of the 1969 Stonewall rebellion, cites the enlightened comments of Panther leader Huey Newton, exposes the limits of the SWP's position, and contrasts it with somewhat better positions taken by other Trotskyist groups.[1] He rightly criticises positions that in the best of cases tend to dress up defences of minority rights in radical-sounding verbiage instead of attacking the deeper roots of heterosexism. Unfortunately Thorstad chooses as his decisive criterion agreement with his and Lauritsen's demand for repeal of age -of-consent laws. Thorstad and Lauritsen have every right to be bitter: The attacks on them not only by the FBI and Jesse Helms but also from within the lesbian/ gay movement have been appalling. Sadly, this seems to sour Thorstad's vision of the movement as a whole. The same sourness disfigures the "Afterword to the Revised Edition" of "The Early Homosexual Rights Movement." "The mainstream gay organisations of the present" are dismissed as "politically correct zombies," and the "radicalism of such groups as Queer Nation" as "bizarre and offensive behaviour." (102) Substantive lesbian/gay radicalism is certainly on the defensive, but the scene is not quite as bleak as Lauritsen and Thorstad paint it.[2] Class and Community Manfred Herzer's article on "Communists, Social Democrats, and the Homosexual Movement in the Weimar Republic" stands out in "Gay Men and the Sexual History of the Political Left," not only for its sense for historical context but also because it points to new frontiers for investigation. Herzer shows how other writers wrench quotations from the Social Democratic and Communist press out of context, simply editing out reaffirmations of opposition to anti-gay laws that are inconvenient for anti-Marxist arguments. German gay leaders, he shows, whatever their personal politics, acknowledged the crucial support their movements received from the left. But he goes further and deeper, pointing out that gay leaders treated Nazis like Roehm with kid gloves and failed to mobilise their own members against fascism because a high proportion of their membership was right-wing. Herzer has no explanation for the disproportionate right-wing sympathies of the gay movement's rank and file: this would require a far-reaching "social" history and analysis of the pre-war community. Only in the last few years have gay historians begun to explore in depth the historical interaction of sexuality andclass. George Chauncey's "Gay New York" makes a strong case that gay identity as it exists today emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a mainly middle-class phenomenon, while U.S. working-class men continued until at least the 1940s to identify only "passive" malemale sexual behaviour with "fairies" and to consider men who played an "active" role in sexual intercourse with either women or men as "real men."[3] If this same pattern held true for pre-war Central and Western Europe, it could explain many things. It could explain for example why self-identified gay men in Weimar Germany came largely from middle-class backgrounds and largely shared the conservative politics of their social class. It could also help explain why more left-leaning gay groups, like Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, tended to put forward "old-fashioned" "third sex" theories, while a more "modern" approach was characteristic of more right-leaning groups like the Community of the Special. All this is speculation. Although historians like John D'Emilio have already begun linking the social archaeology of emerging lesbian/gay communities in the post-war USA with the wellsprings of lesbian/gay politics.[4], similar work on the pre-war USA and Europe has not really begun. There is certainly plenty to study. Left-leaning "sex reformers" like Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman, Crystal and Max Eastman and Floyd Dell in the United States and the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in Holland were increasingly active in the 1910s, and networking internationally by the 1920s. Studying sexual changes in the broader societies is difficult, given that almost everyone who was alive then is dead now. All the more reason why all possible sources should be sought out and the exploration begun. Peter Drucker Notes 1. Thorstad's resentment against the SWP leads him to dismiss all groups that resulted even remotely from SWP expulsions in the 1980s, including Solidarity (the group that sponsors Against the Current, the magazine in which this article first appeared). (346, n.14) People interested in understanding Solidarity's lesbian/gay politics should not rely on Thorstad, but read the section on lesbian/gay liberation in Solidarity's 1986 Founding Statement as well as its 1994 pamphlet, "Socialist Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Liberation". 2. For another view of the U.S. movement, see Peter Drucker,"What is queer nationalism?" "Against the Current" 43, March/April 1993. 3. George Chauncey, "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940," New York: Basic Books, 1994. 4. John D'Emilio, "Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970," Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Peter Drucker, an advisory editor of "Against the Current" and "Grenzeloos", is currently compiling an anthology on "same-sex sexualities and popular struggles in the Third World" for Gay Men's Press (forthcoming 1998). He has lived in Amsterdam since 1993. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** From: "Brett Murphy" To: Subject: L-I: Re: Lenin on Sex: 1 Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 11:34:43 -0700 I have chosen not to mention this strangers to avoid a rude reply. I think this is a valid topic though. Brett ***************************************** Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 14:56:45 -0500 From: Carrol Cox To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany E.C.Apling wrote: "This is all old hat - homosexuality was decriminalised in 1957 - what the hell do they want to be going on about it still in 1998? Sexuality, in whatever form, is a *private* matter - it is disgusting to parade advocacy of some form of it in the streets." This is not worth arguing against, but it is worth labelling as the most malign form of homophobia, the kind that under an umbrella of supposed "toleration" in fact claims that those being beaten, driven from their jobs, mocked, deprived of their children, ... are the ones who are causing the trouble. All would have been well in the 1960s if those damn Vietnam peasants and those damn black ghetto dwellers had only been decent about their oppression and not made such a fuss. Carrol ***************************************** From: " Staffan Snitting" To: Subject: L-I: to the comrades on the list Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 22:12:21 +0200 hey I have not followed the recent discussion on homosexuality too close, as I have been in Denmark for the 6th congress of my organisation's sisterorganisation there, Röd Ungdom. but as far as I understand a group called Neue einheit have spread out anti-gay propaganda. to me, this list needs to be open for discussion, but that is discussion between socialists and communists. we probably wouldn't let Tony Blair on the list (well not that I came to think of it that would be kind of hilarious, but you get my point), and neither neo-nazis, and I can't see any reason as to why we should let us hear bullshit from people with anti-gay attitudes. they are no comrades of ours. they are prejudiced and ignorant and biggoted. fuck em. thanks goes out to Louis Proyect for the Gays and the left article. also even tho it outrages me to see ppl claiming to be leftish spread anti-gay propaganda, it makes me feel good that most of you on the list was equally outraged. I think the topic is very interesting, as even my organisation has A HISTORY of not being anti-gay, but having some pretty strange views about why gay people are gay. thankfully that is gone, but we still suffer from it ("oh, yer in that stalinist-antigay party"). I am proud to wear a badge made by the dutch communist punkgroup Seein Red with a red "downpointing" triangle (as the pink "downpoiting" triangle is a "gay-logo" (sorry about my english)), even tho I am not gay. also I'd like to quote the same band to sum this up: "swing your baseballbat make it clear, no more fagbashing here" (even tho it sounds a bit anarchist) staffan snitting of Revolutionary communistic youth, sweden ***************************************** To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Weklu@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 06:55:29 EDT Subject: L-I: Trotsky on homosexuality? [This post was delayed because it was sent from an address not subscr*bed to the list; it was forwarded by Hans Ehrbar] Since the debate on homosexuality began some quotations from Lenin, Engels, Bebel and others were posted. It was said that Stalin criminalized homosexuality in the 1930s (but nothing about his reasons to do it). What about Trotsky? Can anyone tell us what he said about? Did he wrote something about homosexuality? weklu ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:48:26 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Doug Henwood > All you homophobes, sign up! > > Doug > Another one-liner from the individualistically sex-obssessed Manhattan Marxists and one more proof of their prowess of analysis and their actual indulging in the practice of 'baiting'. Like a refree in a soccer game, they have two cards. The first one is yellow and has the words 'homophobe' inscribed on it. If that does not work, they will whip out the red one that contain the word "Hitler". Like George Bush and the mass media who were frenetically using this very same word in the 1990s. (And this is also the way they analyze the fascism of the present era.) In that, they follow in the footsteps of their ideological masters. In their banners, are the words "free love" and "free sex", the very same views that are promulgated world wide by the ruling classes through all their channels of misinformation and disinformation which drag the intellectual and cultural levels of the masses to the ground - to the base level where the bourgeois wants. They march with the pictures of the new liberated capitalist woman, Ortega, Borges, Villalobos, Castro, while pouring scorn on the leaders of great revolutions (past and present) whose ideas are diametrically opposed to the prescriptions and admonitions of Manhattan Marxism. What supreme arrogance and what a joke. And the list moderator, who see various lists (and people, presumably) as playing 'complementary' roles, wonders at the reasons for this 'strange outburst'. At this caricature passing for Marxism. Father, please let us have our (apolitical) rut in peace before we finally "rest in peace"! ***************************************** From: "E.C.Apling" To: Subject: RE: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:32:11 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu > [mailto:owner-leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu]On Behalf Of > Carrol Cox > Sent: 06 October 1998 20:57 > To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu > Subject: Re: L-I: NEUE EINHEIT on the election campaign in Germany > > > > > E.C.Apling wrote: "This is all old hat - homosexuality was > decriminalised in > 1957 - what the hell do they want to be going on about it still in 1998? > Sexuality, in whatever form, is a *private* matter - it is > disgusting to parade > advocacy of some form of it in the streets." > > This is not worth arguing against, but it is worth labelling as > the most malign > form of homophobia, the kind that under an umbrella of supposed > "toleration" in > fact claims that those being beaten, driven from their jobs, > mocked, deprived of > their children, ... are the ones who are causing the trouble. All > would have > been well in the 1960s if those damn Vietnam peasants and those damn black > ghetto dwellers had only been decent about their oppression and > not made such a > fuss. > > Carrol > This attack just smacks of the Zionist response to criticism of Israel as "blatant anti-semitism". It is not really worth a reply. Paddy Mailto:E.C.Apling@btinternet.com > > > > ***************************************** Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 16:19:22 +0100 From: Mark Jones To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: WARNING TO NEUE EINHEIT was Re: L-I: to the moderators Kerdudo wrote: > i'm not used to appealing to anyone for censorship but i am alarmed to see > that the group neue einheit has been allowed to so openly air its view on > the question of homosexuality. having been given the right of reply i feel > that this is perfectly sufficient. are there any rules regarding attitutes > which will not be tolerated on this list beyond a reasonable point, eg. > what are we to expect next, to have to defend the fact that blacks are not > inately inferior to whites based on brain size or that women should not be > allowed to vote? I'm inclined to agree that this thread has run its course. Neue Einheit have nothing new or interesting to say and what they do say is assertions and the crudest kind of unsubstantiated prejudice without any pretence of rational argument let alone science. Nevertheless they have the sole merit of stimulating others, and I have read with real interest some of the other contributions to this thread, as have others no doubt. Since communists inevitably do meet all kinds of reactionary ideas coming from the mouths of their fellow workers, there is some point in rehearsing the arguments in a forum such as this. That is the main reason I let NE run on so long. However I have reached the limit of my patience so this is just to let Klas Ber and his pals know that any more homophobic remarks will result in Neue Einheit being excluded from the list. Mark Jones -- http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm ***************************************** Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:21 -0400 (EDT) From: John P Lacny To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! OK, I'm coming into the middle of this exchange, but I feel I have to say something. To claim that discrimination against homosexuals is all in the past, and that therefore homosexuals should just quit whining now, is objectively homophobic. It is to oppose the movement for the rights of gays and lesbians. This is a movement against both the legal impediments to full citizenship for gays and lesbians, and the structural discrimination which exists against people who are "out of the closet"-- most especially working people who come out of the closet, and thereby risk getting fired from their jobs. In most countries, homosexuals do not have the right to marriage. Now, don't give me all that crap about how marriage is just a bourgeois institution anyway. If there was an attempt at the reinstitution of miscegenation laws in the American South, for example, we would be raising hell, and rightfully so. To shut people out of even bourgeois institutions because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, is a fundamental attack on democratic rights. That's why the French left correctly saw the attack on Dreyfus as an attack on the republic-- as an attack on the (admittedly limited) democratic rights the working class had achieved-- and defended Dreyfus. It didn't matter that Dreyfus was an army officer and that the army was an oppressive institution; what mattered was that anti-Semitism was (1) inherently unjust in and of itself, and (2) a gathering point for reaction. Anti-gay sentiment is a similar gathering point for reaction today. It has the potential to serve exactly the same function that Bebel attributed to anti-Semitism: "the socialism of fools." Take, for example, the ruling of the reactionary U.S. Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia, who, in defense of a Colorado law against civil rights protections for gays and lesbians, alleged that homosexuals as a group were better off economically than the rest of society-- and therefore, by implication, were not worthy of protection by the law. This kind of development-- this targetting of a specific population as privileged and wealthy by right-wing forces who otherwise ignore inequality-- smacks of classic demagoguery, and shows the true nature of political homophobia: it is a tool of reaction. Leftists who grab at the bait do so at their own peril and at the peril of the left generally. As for those who would brush off accusations of homophobia by comparing them to Zionist accusations of anti-Semitism: does the fact that false accusations of anti-Semitism get thrown around mean that it is now impossible for anyone to be anti-Semitic? or that it's impossible to make an anti-Semitic statement? I think not. For the sake of argument, let's say you encounter an individual who makes the following statement: "The US supports the Jew because of Jew money and the fact that the Jew dominates American law, finance, and the media." Now, I think it's pretty obvious that that statement is anti-Semitic, and there's a good chance that the person who says it is an anti-Semite. Whether he says it in 1933 or 1998, it's an anti-Semitic statement. The Zionists, who so often throw around false accusations of anti-Semitism, would be right if they labeled this statement anti-Semitic. There's no contradiction there; this should be easy to understand. (By the way, the statement itself is taken verbatim from a post on the MARXISM-INTERNATIONAL list on Thursday, August 20, by-- you guessed it-- Louis Godena.) Call me a "Manhattan Marxist" if you want, but it seems to me that if you're a gay man who's having his head bashed in by a thug, you probably wouldn't see gay liberation as an irrelevant "bourgeois" side issue. My two cents, John Lacny ***************************************** Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:39:01 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: >In that, they follow in the footsteps of their ideological masters. >In their banners, are the words "free love" and "free sex", the very >same views that are promulgated world wide by the ruling classes >through all their channels of misinformation and disinformation which >drag the intellectual and cultural levels of the masses to the ground >- to the base level where the bourgeois wants. This is just pure nonsense. Your email address says you're posting from the United States, and I've actually seen you in person on Manhattan Island, which is part of the United States, even if not on the mainland. So I guess it wouldn't make much sense to ask you what planet you're on, as much as I'm tempted. So instead I'll ask you where you ever got the idea that the bourgeoisie is encouraging rampant and unconventional fucking among the masses. Do you realize that something called the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress last year? That the so-called welfare reform bill - officially the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 - has these as its first words: >The Congress makes the following findings: > >(1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful society. > >(2) Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which >promotes the interests of children. > >(3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to >successful child rearing and the well-being of children. > >(4) In 1992, only 54 percent of single-parent families with children had >a child support order established and, of that 54 percent, only about >one-half received the full amount due. Of the cases enforced through the >public child support enforcement system, only 18 percent of the caseload >has a collection. > >(5) The number of individuals receiving aid to families with dependent >children (in this section referred to as `AFDC') has more than tripled >since 1965. More than two-thirds of these recipients are children. >Eighty-nine percent of children receiving AFDC benefits now live in >homes in which no father is present. In other words, bourgeois marriage is official policy in the U.S., *especially* for the lower orders. Henry Hyde and others can commit their youthful indiscretions, but the masses are expected to behave. Poor lesbian Ellen can't even keep her TV show on the air. I'm wondering what all you austere revolutionaries see as your utopia? Wouldn't more pleasure be part of it? Or should we work work work to produce even more steel than we can under capitalism? Doug ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:27:38 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Mark Jones > But the problem with Sid's recent outbursts is not just that they are shrill > and unnecessarily hostile, and also not very logical: the problem is that Sid > has begun to apologise for the homophobia and antisemitism of troglodyte > stalinists like Klas Ber and the evil Louis Godena. Since you have made the above charge, I am asking you to provide concrete proof of this. Both for homophobia and for antisemitism. If you cannot do so, then you should withdraw your allegation. Also, remember that I am not running for a popularity contest among the Manhattan crowd of opportunists and revisionists (apparently your new friends - the real 'left'). So it does not matter what they or the others say. But since I know you somewhat, I am wondering why you are alleging this. From the very beginning, I have made my opinion clear. That any attack by the state or society on consensual homosexuals has to be condemned and opposed since it is private matter. Do I have to repeat this in every post? My object was not the analysis of homosexuality but the very notion of bourgeois sexuality of which homosexuality is certainly a component as are heterosexual marriage and free love. But no one has answered some of the questions I have raised. And by the way, for the millions and millions of hungry impoverished people on the planet, this issue is not an issue at all at the present time. And I am sorry that I too have spilled unecessary ink on the matter. The famished and hungry people of Asia, Latin America and Africa have no movements that represents their life and death chances unlike the powerful bourgeois women's and gay rights movements that today exist in the rich countries. And quite a few among the ruling classes are supporters of such rights. Many people on this list do not know, understand or comprehend real oppression or even the source of true fascism today for that matter. That is why they use this term very loosely like the boy who cried 'wolf'. So which side do you stand on, Mark? With the Eurocentric Manhattan 'Marxists' of the Ortega, Castro, Borges, Villalobos, Marcos (who by the way has become a sex symbol in Mexico) variety who heap insult and abuse like loose cannons and who make prescriptions to "get laid", which if made to a women would surely be considered anti-woman and sexist? Who pour scorn and insult on Engels and Lenin and lay baits for "homophobes"? Or on the other side. It is time that you too laid your cards on the table. ***************************************** Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 19:59:23 +0100 From: Mark Jones To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! John P Lacny wrote: > As for those who would brush off accusations of homophobia by > comparing them to Zionist accusations of anti-Semitism: does the fact that > false accusations of anti-Semitism get thrown around mean that it is now > impossible for anyone to be anti-Semitic? or that it's impossible to make > an anti-Semitic statement? I think not. > This is so self-evidently true that it saddens me to see someone like Sid Chatterjee make such statements in the first place. John Lacny and others who criticised Sid have been right to do so. I have always had a lot of time for Sid, who struck me as a serious and committed activist, if a little over-earnest at times, and if he has a tendency to get trapped into cycles of flaming, which of us doesn't from time to time? But the problem with Sid's recent outbursts is not just that they are shrill and unnecessarily hostile, and also not very logical: the problem is that Sid has begun to apologise for the homophobia and antisemitism of troglodyte stalinists like Klas Ber and the evil Louis Godena. This is something we have to be very clear about: homophobia and antisemitism have always flourished in the dank and seamier undersides of the working class movement historically. The politics of Hitler and Mussolini was fertilised in this soil, remember. Antisemitism, racism and homophobia, especially the latent, inarticulate or disguised kinds, are especially dangerous and must be dragged into the light of day; and those who are its bearers must not be given houseroom in our movement. This is the politics of imperialism within the workers' movement. Sometimes it is necessary to let evil manifest itself in order to better expose and destroy it. We have done that. But Neue Einheit -- like Adolfo Olaechea and the antisemite Louis Godena -- have no place alongside us. They are not part of the left, even tho' they have usurped our emblems and catchwords. In fact unpleasant little organisms like Marxism-International or NE hate the left - Godena recently called for the execution of trade union leaders as necessary to overcome 'social fascism'. Godena and Olaechea are provocateurs who drove the real left out of M-Int, and their vicious anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-working class politics shows that they are witting or unwitting agents of imperialism. > "The US supports the Jew because of Jew money and the fact that > the Jew dominates American law, finance, and the media." > I am not a subscriber of M-Int but I did see this posting by Louis Godena and I was astonished by it. It is clear evidence that Godena and Olaechea have moved beyond the pale: they are not part of us. We should anathematize them. Sven Buttler and other who call Neue Einheit 'Nazis' are literally correct: they ARE Nazis. In my own Party our policy towards Nazis is to 'acquaint their heads with the pavement', as Trotsky put it. The fact that we have debated these issues should not allow anyone to supose that the presence of such people on this list is welcome; it is not. Mark Jones http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm ***************************************** Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 16:24:20 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: "Matt D." Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Mark Jones wrote: >This is so self-evidently true that it saddens me to see someone like Sid >Chatterjee make such statements in the first place. John Lacny and others who >criticised Sid have been right to do so. To try and tar Sid with the brush of Olechea/Godena -- not to mention homophobia -- is just ridiculous! From the *very beginning* Sid has *explicitly* supported the unconditional defense of those oppressed by *illegal or legal* means on the basis of their sexuality. At the same time, he has attempted to initiate a conversation about the Marxist-Leninist analysis of sexuality grounded in the history of our movement and illuminated by an appreciation that the masses who will make history for the most part don't live in the metropoles. If we are to get any real handle on this extremely complex issue, which integrates perhaps more closely than any other history, biology, economy and psychology, we *must* go beyond the facile "free love" bullshit advanced by the likes of Henwood and Proyect. They have repeatedly mis-represented Sid, who has *never* endorsed gay-bashing and whose own testimony is *explicitly* against any such terroristic crap. They have repeatedly *refused* to engage any of the serious questions he has tried to raise. The have repeatedly alternated between appealing to Lenin and dismissing Lenin (whom they seem to completely misunderstand anyway), without ever engaging the material that Sid was kind enough to forward to the list. As for the NE hate-mongers and the blockheads who can't see through their game, they are an authentic -- and authentically ugly -- part of our tradition. I agree with Mark that they are objectively on the side of fascism, and must be dealt with as such. But Sid has not at any point had any truck with these folks, so to toss slurs in his direction as has been done is *exactly* like the accusations of anti-Semitism used by Zionists *not* to call out real anti-Semites, but to foreclose the possibility of any discussion at all. As for Proyect's abominable admonition to "go get laid" -- why has this not been called out? It's absolutely beneath contempt, the *exact* same rhetorical strategy employed against women who attempt to raise the veil that obscures the sexual culture of our times. We might expect something like that from Henwood, the same "liberated" individual who found it a lark to inflict Tracy Quan on the marxism-feminism list back in the day. It's too bad that Proyect seems to be degenerating in this same fashion. Maybe there is something to the thesis of "Manhattan Marxism" as a Sadean (cf. "Frenchmen, if you would be republicans!") variant of modern revisionism. -- Matt D. ***************************************** Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:10:13 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Godena wrote: > "The US supports the Jew because of Jew money and the fact that > the Jew dominates American law, finance, and the media." This is truly extraordinary. When I first encountered Godena in cyberland, he was a cranky but often compellingly interesting character. When I left M-I, he was giving me a hard time over what I thought was Gore Vidal's flirtations with anti-Semitism, of the upper class WASPy sort. Godena thought this was outrageous, and clung to the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I'm all for that distinction, but it's obvious that Godena's gone over to the wrong side. What happened to him? Where does this come from? Doug ***************************************** Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 18:03:38 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Matt D: >To try and tar Sid with the brush of Olechea/Godena -- not to mention >homophobia -- is just ridiculous! From the *very beginning* Sid has >*explicitly* supported the unconditional defense of those oppressed by >*illegal or legal* means on the basis of their sexuality. As I tried to make clear, it has been Sid Chatterjee's modus operandi to never exactly come out and state the same things as Godena, Olaechea or Neue Einheit. Instead what he does is make a big show of agnosticism while giving aid and comfort to the extremists. In the debates on Cuba as "fascist", Sid never came out and agreed with this position. What he does is talk about prostitution in Cuba, the Pope's visit, trade with multinationals, etc. This is the same stuff that Godena and Olaechea come up with, but they connect the dots and state that Cuba IS fascist. Sid seems to lack the guts to come out and openly state such an extremist and stupid position, but he skates around it. The same thing happened with the gay question. While giving lip-service to the rights of gay people not to be thrown in prison for same-sex relations, he writes obnoxious posts about incest, libertinism in 1920s Russia, and a host of other issues that tend to objectively make defenders of gay rights look like perverts. He, like you, have never really come to grips with the politics of the question. The RCP, a group you used to belong to, made no bones about calling a spade a spade. They described homosexuality as a "bourgeois perversion." Furthermore, both of you are totally uncritical of Stalin, who made same-sex illegal in the 1930s. Neither of you have the guts to openly distinguish yourselves from Neue Einheit, nor do you have the guts to state that the RCP was wrong and Stalin was wrong. So instead you raise all sorts of red herrings about Russian CP students spending too much time in the sack instead of making leaflets, or pedophilia, or whether animals do or not. Both of you are beneath characters like Olaechea who at least has the courage of his convictions. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 18:30:29 -0400 From: Martin Schreader To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Doug Henwood wrote in response to Godena's anti-Semitism: > > Where does this come from? > Adolfo Olachea. Martin -- Martin Schreader 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: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:09:16 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: >Also, >remember that I am not running for a popularity contest among the >Manhattan crowd of opportunists and revisionists (apparently your new >friends - the real 'left'). So it does not matter what they or the >others say. Your rhetoric here belies the rest of your protestations of tolerance - this is just the kind of turn of phrase you'd expect out of George Wallace or some code-word-using devious bourgeois politician. I'll bet there are same sexers and worse all over Syracuse, maybe even on your block, Sid. Doug ***************************************** Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:54:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John P Lacny To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: >And by the way, for the millions and millions of hungry impoverished >people on the planet, this issue is not an issue at all at the >present time. This is just a cheap rhetorical trick. It's in the same league with the small-minded thinking of rightists who love to say that the poor in the U.S. are not "really" poor because poor people in the Third World are even poorer. What nonsense. The issue here seems to be whether we, as Marxists, should combat tendencies towards homophobia within our own ranks. Chatterjee, while pleading his own opposition to homophobia, seems to think it's not really important for us to oppose it, because it's "just not an issue at all" for the poor of the Third World. Where's the logic here? John Lacny ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:05:21 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! John P Lacny: > This is just a cheap rhetorical trick. It's in the same league > with the small-minded thinking of rightists who love to say that the > poor in the U.S. are not "really" poor because poor people in the Third > World are even poorer. What nonsense. The issue here seems to be whether > we, as Marxists, should combat tendencies towards homophobia within our > own ranks. Chatterjee, while pleading his own opposition to homophobia, > seems to think it's not really important for us to oppose it, because it's > "just not an issue at all" for the poor of the Third World. Where's the > logic here? > > John Lacny Since we are on the subject of homophobia, Father Lacny, what is your opinion of Allen Ginsburg? PS: By the way, I am not 'pleading' with any of you or your holy brethren of the revisionist Manhattan flock. Let us get that clear. And you are most welcome to oppose homophobia all you like. After all, it is very fashionable (even within the ranks of the bourgeosie) and heroic nowadays to address gay liberation, womens's liberation, human liberation, etc . Class has almost vanished from the picture. Amen! ***************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 01:09:11 +0100 From: Mark Jones To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Sid Let's try to avoid a show-trial atmosphere. No-one is on trial, except the unashamed, open homophobes and antisemites. BTW, it's not enough just to say where one stands (we all oppose attacks on the rights of consenting adults to do what they please). As some people have been doing, it is also necessary above all to expose the antisemites, racists and homophobes for what they are and to denounce them. You did not appear to do that. Perhaps I misunderstood something. And this is not a marginal issue and it is pointless to try to weight the relevance of gay or race issues against the fate of the sufferring masses in the neocolonial countries.For one thing, establishing freedom from sexual or racial persecution does not detract or diminish struggles in neocolonial countries; so to drag that in is just a red herring. Secondly, imperialism always uses racist untermenschen theories to justify precisely its pillaging wars in the neocolonies, so the interests of the neocolonial masses are also served by that struggle. This is just ABC, Sid. Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: > [snip] > remember that I am not running for a popularity contest among the > Manhattan crowd of opportunists and revisionists (apparently your new > friends - the real 'left'). So it does not matter what they or the > others say. If you call people like Lou Proyect and Doug Henwood 'the Manhattan crowd of opportunists and revisionists' then you can expect a few raspberries back. It is simply silly to dismiss them like. They are not opportunists and revisionists, but you are highly, perhaps hopelessly, sectarian, to say they are. > My object was not the analysis of > homosexuality but the very notion of bourgeois sexuality of which > homosexuality is certainly a component as are heterosexual marriage > and free love. I am sure that is your objective and sometimes you write very well on that subject. If you quit banging on about the Manhattan socialists etc and get back on track, it would be good. > But no one has answered some of the questions I have raised. That is also true, and a shame, but part of the reason is that while asking your questions you are also insulting people! So what do you expect? > And by > the way, for the millions and millions of hungry impoverished > people on the planet, this issue is not an issue at all at the > present time. And I am sorry that I too have spilled unecessary > ink on the matter. The famished and hungry people of Asia, Latin > America and Africa have no movements that represents their life and > death chances unlike the powerful bourgeois women's and gay rights > movements that today exist in the rich countries. And quite a few > among the ruling classes are supporters of such rights. Many people > on this list do not know, understand or comprehend real oppression or > even the source of true fascism today for that matter. That is why > they use this term very loosely like the boy who cried 'wolf'. Actually, women's and children's rights bear crucially on struggles for social justice in the neocolonies. These kinds of struggles ARE all interlinked and should all be discussed. > So which side do you stand on, Mark? With the Eurocentric Manhattan > 'Marxists' of the Ortega, Castro, Borges, Villalobos, Marcos (who by > the way has become a sex symbol in Mexico) variety who heap insult > and abuse like loose cannons and who make prescriptions to "get > laid", which if made to a women would surely be considered anti-woman > and sexist? Who pour scorn and insult on Engels and Lenin and lay > baits for "homophobes"? Or on the other side. Sid, I'm happy to discuss any and all of the above with you, but not like this. Life's too short. Mark-- http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm ***************************************** From: "Brett Murphy" To: Subject: L-I: Re: Lenin on Sex: 2 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:11:50 +1000 An interesting paragraph I will say. Could you explain it in a few sentences instead of paragraphs? Brett ***************************************** From: Krixel@aol.com Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:51:22 EDT To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: L-I: Incredible slanderings and helplessness Indescribable slanderings and helplessness Dear Mr. Jones, and Mr. Kerdudo who acts like a public overseer, the accusation of Nazism is absurd and laughable and justified by absolutely nothing. Apparently you attempt to bring about the end of the discussion. Of course we shall continue to post the necessary explanations to it. If you block this there just will not be a further participation in the discussion. We do not depend on your list and we shall possibly talk about your miserable measures from other points of the net. You don't shrink back from any kind of slanderings and insinuations which are completely absurd, only in order to give some alleged credibility to your balking at criticism. The experiences with the list during the latest discussion, the Trotskyite- fascist standpoints which actually became evident in the cases of numerous participants don't not make it attractive for us, anyway, to considerably post contributions there. The Trotskyite writers have attacked us, we have answered, and we have ready still more answers, and if you interrupt the discussion only your weakness and wretchedness are being shown. Besides, we dispute your right to decide alone if we can post to this list or not!! PS about your latest posting which we got just now. This documents your real Trotskism and helplessness. You and your companions are hit by the criticism. Nazism you cannot find an any of our writings or in our practice. The group Roter Morgen - a relic of a three times traitor organization - is so much disreputed in our country that it is not necessary to go into their unproven assertions which they spread into the wind. posted by Krixel in behalf of: Group Neue Einheit Hartmut Dicke ***************************************** From: "Kerdudo" To: Subject: L-I: RE: Incredible slanderings and helplessness Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:34:50 +0100 i did say that i would refrain from taking part in this thread afer having made my own pesonal position clear (two posts: one reagrding my actual position itself re marxism and the gay question and the second a note to the moderators). it would seem that someone has taken offence to this latter note and as i have been mentioned in person as someone alledgedly responsile for banying around accustations of lander vis a vis neue einheit i feel bound to reply. i shall reply in points: 1. i have apparently been put in the same bag as Mr. Jones. i should like to make it very clear that i do not know mr. jones nor have i ever met him. as to whether or not we can be referred to as 'you and your companions' is therefore rather dubious as all i know of mr. jone's politics is whatever he has stated on this list. i also doyubt that he hasd any deep insights into the plitics of the party i belong to (and whoe views i do not necessarily represent on this list - i speak in a purely personal capacity as i have pointed out many time before). nor, for the record, do i have anything to do with (even know) roter morgen (or for that matter most of th parties represented by the people participating on this list) 2. as for mr. jones being labelled a trotskyite, this is somehing i rather doubt based on my experience of other postings of his to this list. i for one completely refute this label - for your information my own personal political formation is essential pro-albanian (but being a true marxist, this does not of course mean that i recognise everything stalin or hoxha happened to ever say on any topic under the sun to be gospel truth) 3. i completely refite the fact that i have ever accused either neue einheit or any other person or group on this net 'nazi'. this is not a term i would ver use lightly. i would appeal to you, therefore, as a gesture of sincereity, to withdraw this particular accustaion 4. regarding the note posted to the moderators (the exact wording of which i forget) i should like to say that i do not believe that i ever accused your party of being a nazi gfroup. i do not know your party or its politics - i stated the fact that the thread grew up from a comment regarding a programmatical point of yopur party to which you responded and i stated quite clearly that i beleive this right to reply to be essential. howver, i felt - and still feel - that this particular thread is both going nowhere useful (not only has no one actually managed to see reason or learn from the debate in anyway given the fact that the stances have remained unchanged but further it seems to be degenerating into yet another personal slanging match) and should come to an end (not because of censorship per se but becasue nothing new is really being said and we're just going round in circles) 5. as far as censorship in itself is concerned, may i remind the person from neue einheit who made the accustaions against me listed in the post below that i (unlike neue einheit) have particpated actively on this list for quite some time. if you have been passively watching from the side lines over this same period you with have noticed that prcedents do exist for calling it a day, closing a debate on the main list and inviting those who wish to continue with the discussion to do so on a mini list (this is what i understood to have happened with the long-running stalin-trotsky saga) 6. finally, may i say that i do not take kindly to veiled threats. whilst i can only assume you have other channels open to you, i hardly beleive that were this debate to be closed it would provide reason enough for you (or anyone else for that matter) to start attacking them (in what ways you do not say) through the net. if i have misunderstood the terms of your message below, i hereby withdraw this accustaion of you making threats and apoligize for this publicly on the list. (you see, i am actually quite polite and careful about the words i use which does not mean that i mince my words - this is hardly in line with me accusing anyone i don't know of being a nazi) 7. incidentally, i for one have no way of blocking any mails from getting onto this list - i am not a moderator, just someone who is interested in this list not becoming monotematic (stalin-trotsky, should on defend the russian communists and now the gay question....). that is why i 'appealed' to the moderator to reflect on this matter - that is what moderators are for surely. my appeal was made in a purely personal capacity and was not intended to exclude you in particular just an attempt to say maybe it's time to move on to pastures greener. revolutionary greetings, neal ---------- > De: Krixel@aol.com > A: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu > Asunto: L-I: Incredible slanderings and helplessness > Fecha: jueves 8 de octubre de 1998 13:51 > > > Indescribable slanderings and helplessness > > Dear Mr. Jones, and Mr. Kerdudo who acts like a public overseer, > > the accusation of Nazism is absurd and laughable and justified by absolutely > nothing. > Apparently you attempt to bring about the end of the discussion. Of course we > shall continue to post the necessary explanations to it. If you block this > there just will not be a further participation in the discussion. We do not > depend on your list and we shall possibly talk about your miserable measures > from other points of the net. You don't shrink back from any kind of > slanderings and insinuations which are completely absurd, only in order to > give some alleged credibility to your balking at criticism. > The experiences with the list during the latest discussion, the Trotskyite- > fascist standpoints which actually became evident in the cases of numerous > participants don't not make it attractive for us, anyway, to considerably post > contributions there. The Trotskyite writers have attacked us, we have > answered, and we have ready still more answers, and if you interrupt the > discussion only your weakness and wretchedness are being shown. > Besides, we dispute your right to decide alone if we can post to this list or > not!! > > PS about your latest posting which we got just now. > > This documents your real Trotskism and helplessness. You and your companions > are hit by the criticism. Nazism you cannot find an any of our writings or in > our practice. The group Roter Morgen - a relic of a three times traitor > organization - is so much disreputed in our country that it is not necessary > to go into their unproven assertions which they spread into the wind. > > posted by Krixel in behalf of: > > Group Neue Einheit > Hartmut Dicke > > > ***************************************** From: "John Ky" To: Subject: L-I: Shouting about homosexuality Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:47:19 +1000 >I must say that for the last decade or so I have been >more and more disturbed, annoyed, scandalised, sickened >(can't think of any more words at the moment), by the >brazen displays, descrptions, advocacy (etc. etc) of >homosexuality continually confronting us on TV and the >media generally. > >Sexuality, in whatever form, is a *private* matter - >it is disgusting to parade advocacy of some form of >it in the streets. > >Anyone who continually shouts out that "I'm a >homosexual" or "I'm gay" - or even on the contrary >(but I have never heard anyone do it) "I'm heterosexual" >- puts him/herself immediately beyond the pale, and is >to be resolutely avoided (and how to understand how >anyone can put forward "defence of "gay" rights" as a >revolutionary slogan completely defeats me - at least >with regard to UK or anywhere where "gays" are not >criminalised). > >homosexuality *does* exist [snip] but then none of >them go round shouting about it!! Yes, it would be nice if these things didn't happen, but the homosexuals who participate in these displays aren't the only ones to blame. Just look around: + There are people who stand along the steets + There are people who turn on the television + The media is always hot on these events + The government and certain corporations are finding these events very profitable. + There are politicians who try to grasp onto more votes by supporting popular events. + There are heterosexuals being involved as well. I am not so sure homosexuality will ever be accepted in capitalism as is. It has become more of an exhibition. It may well be that homosexuals have earned their freedom and security by: + Openly declaring it for safety in numbers + Being profitable to the bourgeoise government and the corporations that stage these displays. + Trying to get the message that "being homosexual is okay" to heterosexuals and unselfproclaimed homosexuals alike. (As Martin has pointed out that mental illness in homosexuals is a result of the the trauma that comes with discovering that one is gay. I gather there would be a shortage of homosexual role-models as homosexuals are born to heterosexual families.) I cannot say - I am quite unlearned in this issue - but I do believe the matter is deeper than what you suggest. All the best, John Ky. ***************************************** From: "Sven Buttler" To: Subject: L-I: Re: Incredible slanderings and helplessness Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:04:56 +0200 >This documents your real Trotskism and helplessness. You and your companions >are hit by the criticism. Nazism you cannot find an any of our writings or in >our practice. The group Roter Morgen - a relic of a three times traitor >organization - is so much disreputed in our country that it is not necessary >to go into their unproven assertions which they spread into the wind. Hear, hear. And that is coming from the fascist mouths of a "group" nobody ever heard of in Dortmund/Berlin, let alone in the rest of Germany. Their website reads: "...The triple naming KPD/ML (Neue Einheit) in this way is no longer necessary, the term "party" is outdated since a long time. " HaHaHa. One of the better examples of irony to be found on the web. I guess the term party is "outdated" ( of course they mean 'no longer legal' ) since they have not been able to attract at least three people necessary to build a party.... I am not going to respond to any further messages of GNE and I appeal to every one on L-I to do the same. They already got enough attention, much more than they deserved. --- 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/ ************************************************* From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:36:47 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Incredible slanderings and helplessness Sven Butler: > > Hear, hear. And that is coming from the fascist mouths of a "group" > nobody ever heard of in Dortmund/Berlin, let alone in the rest of Germany. > The GNE has certainly a backward, a medieval position on the issue of homosexuality. But does this single fact mean that they are fascist like Hitler as the Trotskyites and Orwell (who was as in now revealed, a police spy) lovers are trying to paint? Are they in league with finance capital and imperialist bourgeoisie? Do they march with the fascists and have the same or similar program? You have to examine the whole spectrum before you rush to judgment. Perhaps, since you live in the same country as they, can provide information about their other activities that conclusively prove their deliberate collusion with fascism. Do not reply with saying that their homophobia directly serves the bourgeoisie because one can cite numerous examples of the anarcho-Trotskyites and even all of us who someway and or the other also serve captitalism. Do not fall for the repugnant and hypocritical moralizing of the Manhattan school. This empty moralizing is also common among anarchists. For these are same people who call Stalin a mass murderer, heap abuse on Lenin (and when caught, retreat and lie their way out), refer to the 'homophobia' of Engels, and even throw mud on Marx for subscribing to the notion that the relation between men and women was 'natural'. Besides their making fun and mockery of a certain type of 'Thought', the representative of which is currently either dead or languishing in the dungeons of a fascist govt in a third-world country. And what is all this but the very same things which the capitalist class and media repeat ad infinitum. If this is not collusion at a much higher level, then what is? So was Stalin a Nazi too? Since he signed the pact with Hitler. For that's ultimately what the Trotskyites and capitalist intellectuals say. So think before you consort with sly hypocritical foxes. ***************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 11:00:30 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: "Matt D." Subject: L-I: Matt replies to Lou Proyect. Lou Proyect wrote: >The same thing happened with the gay question. While giving lip-service to >the rights of gay people not to be thrown in prison for same-sex relations, >he [Sid] writes obnoxious posts about incest, libertinism in 1920s Russia, and a >host of other issues that tend to objectively make defenders of gay rights >look like perverts. I think if you revisit these posts, you will see that these issues were raised in relation to those whose approach to the complex issues of human sexuality consists of the slogans "free love" and "if it feels good, do it". >He, like you, have never really come to grips with the >politics of the question. The RCP, a group you used to belong to, made no >bones about calling a spade a spade. They described homosexuality as a >"bourgeois perversion." Well, RCYB. Sort of the baby RCP, I guess. In any event, I am surprised that you would say I've not come to grips with "the politics of the question" since you were present early in the history of the old marxism list (am I showing my age?) when these issues came up in the context of identity politics more broadly and when I was a more energetic and probably more witty participant than is now the case. Certainly you could check the archives if you'd like to refresh your memory. >Furthermore, both of you are totally uncritical of >Stalin, who made same-sex illegal in the 1930s. Neither of you have the >guts to openly distinguish yourselves from Neue Einheit Lou, in *the message I just posted that you quoted* I thought I distinguished myself very clearly. Perhaps you could take another look. If I recall, you'll find the point of interest in the third to last paragraph. If going back to reread this is too much trouble, drop me a line and I will send you another copy of my post off-list. >nor do you have >the guts to state that the RCP was wrong and Stalin was wrong. With regard to the former, you again seem to have forgotten the extensive discussions about this on the old marxism list. Please check the archives. As for the latter, what do you mean? Are you suggesting that the USSR of the 1930s wasn't the earthly paradise? Are you suggesting that not every decision made by Stalin and other leaders during the period was the most correct of all possible decisions? Is your point that some of these decisions may even have been incorrect (or "wrong", whatever that means)? Well whooptie-doo, Lou! What a breakthrough in historical political eco- nomy you've made! If you are saying that the criminalization of homosexuality in the USSR in the 1930s (presuming this happened ... it certainly seems plausible) was a bad idea, or "wrong" or anti-human, I would say that *viewed from the perspective of 1998* I would agree with you. But while you and I may get some moral uplift out of how much nicer and smarter we are than those poor benighted Russian bastards of the days of yore, its not clear to me that there's anything terribly Marxist about this sort of "bless you / damn you" history game. As for laying this sort of thing at the feet of the Stalin-bogey that you on occasion like to drag out of your trunk of SWP memorabilia, I invite you to take a look at Sheila Fitzpatrick's _Cultural Revolution in Russia_ for a more nuanced perspective on those times, particularly in regard to what is today sometimes referred to (for good or ill) as "lifestyle politics". >So instead >you raise all sorts of red herrings about Russian CP students spending too >much time in the sack instead of making leaflets That was Lenin. >or pedophilia Relevant to the issue of "free love" -- and we all know that there are more heterosexual or gender-indifferent pedophiles than homosexual ones, right? >or whether animals do or not. And this, we agree, is just idiotic, but not raised or engaged by Sid or I. >Both of you are beneath characters like Olaechea who at least has the >courage of his convictions. Beneath Oleachea?! Holy cow, Lou! That's pretty unfair, don't you think? Now, if I can get back to criticizing you ... is there any reason for us to believe that the politics of "free love" advanced by you and Henwood does *not* find its logical expression in DeSade's _Philosophy in the Bedroom_? I might ask whether you have the courage of *your* convictions, but you dance about so much that I'm not sure you really have any convictions about these things at all -- which is okay, I guess, but then just be honest about it. -- Matt D. ***************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 11:48:12 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: Matt replies to Lou Proyect. >Beneath Oleachea?! Holy cow, Lou! That's pretty unfair, don't you think? > >Now, if I can get back to criticizing you ... is there any reason for us to >believe that the politics of "free love" advanced by you and Henwood does >*not* find its logical expression in DeSade's _Philosophy in the Bedroom_? > >I might ask whether you have the courage of *your* convictions, but you >dance about so much that I'm not sure you really have any convictions about >these things at all -- which is okay, I guess, but then just be honest >about it. > >-- Matt D. Look, Matt, both you and Sid know that I like both you personally and respect you politically. I hope that we can put some of the nastiness behind us and move on to other subjects. That being said, it is very important to repudiate the Neue Einheit, RCP "position" on gay rights. Both of you seem to do this, albeit in a begrudging way, so I think it might be time to move on. I endorse Hans's call for turning to the global economic crisis, which will either bring us together as a revolutionary movement worldwide or reduce humanity to a barbarous state. The only thing I would disagree with Hans on is whether it has not been discussed or not. To Mark Jones's credit, he was predicting this when nobody else was. That was one of the reasons so many people flocked to L-I, out of respect for him. It is incumbent on all of us to pay very close attention to these developments, since they promise to make millions of people receptive to the ideas of Marxism once again. I will say one thing, however, and it speaks to the charter of Marxism@panix.com. It is CRUCIAL that we focus on the class struggle as it faces us and put sectarian squabbles behind us. I am not pointing fingers at anybody. No, I take that back. I am pointing fingers at Neue Einheit, Olaechea, Godena, Rodwell and Malecki. These types of personalities represent the past. If Marxism is to become relevant to the masses of working people, such a political sub-subculture must be transcended. On this question, there is very sharp agreement between me and Mark Jones and Jim Hillier. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** From: "Mark" To: Subject: L-I: Socialists supporting oppression? Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:18:56 +0100 To see homophobic trash like the N-E doctrine on morality on this list is absolutely sickening. As Marxists, and followers of dialectic materialism, can socialists/communists really discuss this bigotry, even as a starting point for debate? I understand Mark Jones' point that this has opened up an interesting (and very important) debate. But to be honest, I am astounded that this has been given so much credibility on this list. To any Marxist, this is clearly a question of oppression. The group in question is not how we should determine our approach.Is it acceptable for a communist in Germany in the 1920s to say : "I oppose opression, but those Jews..." or in South Africa of the 1980s... "I'm not racist, but we have to be careful with those kafirs......" Lenin characterised the role of Bolsheviks as being "a tribune of the people" - NB!! not "the STRAIGHT people" or "the GENTILE people" or "the WHITE people" the key criterion for us as Marxists is oppression, not petty bourgeois hang-ups, which stem purely from capitalist society. Mark Adams ***************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 13:18:41 -0400 To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu From: Louis Proyect Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Incredible slanderings and helplessness Sid Chatterjee: >The GNE has certainly a backward, a medieval position on the issue of >homosexuality. But does this single fact mean that they are fascist >like Hitler as the Trotskyites and Orwell (who was as in now >revealed, a police spy) lovers are trying to paint? Are they in >league with finance capital and imperialist bourgeoisie? Do they march with the >fascists and have the same or similar program? > Actually, Neue Einheit is most definitely not fascist. They are dogmatic Maoists, just like Olaechea and Godena. This loose labeling of leftists as fascists is deeply destructive. Olaechea was the first to introduce this habit and it tore the old Marxism list apart. Most of us wanted to put as much distance between ourselves and this kind of sectarian madness. That is why we abandoned Marxism-International. I would urge everybody to simply drop this term from everyday usage. It is neither correct from a precise Marxist standpoint and also tends to polarize discussion in a needless way. It just provokes flame wars. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) ***************************************** From: "Siddharth Chatterjee" To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:25:31 +0000 Subject: Re: L-I: help for homos! Squire Henwood: > I wasn't asked, but if you're talking about the poet Ginsberg, he was a > damn fine wordsmith. Of course he lived a lot of his life in Manhattan, so > you can't trust him. Queer as a $3 bill and all. > And what is fine about his fine art? Perhaps you can elaborate, citing concrete examples and give a comparative literary performance for the backward 'homophobes' (as you described us) on this list. Any other information you got on him besides his fine art? > This is so fucking stupid it hurts. If it were just random stupidity, I'd > ignore it, but it's highly representative stupidity. Are same-sexers not > oppressed? Are women not oppressed? Do those forms of oppression exist in > partial independence from class oppression? Do they interact in complex > ways with class oppression? I'd say yes, and yes, to both. It's not a > matter of either/or, you know. > The dialectical squire certainly makes a good point above. Perhaps he will not deem it beneath his Eminence's dignity to give us stupid folk an exposition that traces all of these complex looping dynamic inter-connections in all their pristine glory. Does the Squire eat meat and fish? If so, he is directly participating in the killing and oppression of animals. Birds, animals, fish cannot speak and are helpless in front of human society. So should liberation of animals from human tyranny also form a part of the overall liberation movement? What does his Eminence think? > Here's a question I'd like to see you class fundamentalists answer: in the > U.S., white men are paid more highly (even controlling for education, > occupation, and all the other usual influences on wage-setting) than people > who aren't white men. So why do employers persist in hiring white guys, > since they could consistently get nonwhites and nonmen to work for less? > I really don't know the answer to this one, haven't any clue, Sire! Perhaps you or the Lord of the Manor can tell us why! P.S. Why can't a bird eat an elephant? Tell me why oh why! Because, an elephant is a pretty big thing, honey Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye! ..... Why won't you answer my questions? Tell me why oh why! Because, to tell you the truth, honey I don't know the answers Goodbye, goodbye, .... goodbye! ***************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 18:35:38 +0100 From: Mark Jones To: leninist-international@buo319b.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: L-I: Re: Incredible slanderings and helplessness Sven Buttler wrote: > I am not going to respond to any further messages of GNE and I > appeal to every one on L-I to do the same. They already got enough > attention, much more than they deserved. You won't have to, Sven, because I just threw them off. Good-bye, Neue Einheit. Mark ***************************************** ***************************************************************** * * * This was the last message we received from the list. * * * * * *****************************************************************