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 pa