I’ve heard bad things about the KKE when it comes to LGBTQ+ struggles but it is true that they have a storied history and lots of experience.
I hope they can correct the attitudes and tendencies toward the LGBTQ struggles in Greece.
Most communist parties reject LGBT though. (BTW before I’m banned I am only outlining why the KKE takes the stance it does I’m not offering my opinion on LGBT… Or just go ahead and ban me now I don’t think this place can actually tackle uncomfortable positions Marxists must look at)
Have you considered why, when parties such as KKE who are extremely advanced theoretically?
There are some very uncomfortable questions regarding LGBT from a Marxist perspective so I’m going to lay them out here
First that homosexuality is not a genetic condition it is a behaviour
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene
That amongst practising homosexuals the rates of pedophilia are 11:1 to heterosexuals so is this a behaviour we actually want to encourage.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
And finally we have to face the uncomfortable truth that LGB and eventually T only became popular and began to manifest in a mass consumer culture when familial bonds had been broken and religious oriented community and been smashed. It is no wonder then that the West had their sexual revolution at the same time (60s).
The rest of the world will never accept LGBT - they don’t have the material conditions of mass consumer culture to develop sexuality into the pathology it is today. LGBT will only ever be used as a weapon of imperialism. We have watched LGBT ideology expand as far as it will go and we see it’s borders end in Greece (deliberately indebted to Germany via Goldman Sachs who cooked the books for Greece to enter the EU), Hungary and Poland (who are comprador nations for the West but are not resisting.).
Nowhere else in the world will LGBT become accepted - the mass consumer base and imperialist wealth is not there to sustain it.
Thirdly, Jasbir Puar coined the term [“homonationalism”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonationalism in her work Terrorist Assemblages where she looked at how the LGBT movement was quickly adopted following the war on terror to justify war, racism, xenophobia toward muslims and how it is continually used against brown people in the 3rd world.
A shorthand point might be that Israel holds Pride parades whilst Palestinians are fervently against LGBT
And lastly, and quite uncomfortably - we must ask why actually existing socialist states in their most revolutionary periods banned LGBT.
And regarding the T we must ask what ideology they serve. For instance when Ts dress do they dress like noble Chinese peasants/Vietnamese rice farmers or african village women?
Or do they dress like debutantes: french aristocrats entering high society?
Again, does this overt sexualisation of the conception of being a women support bourgeois or proletarian ideology?
I’m going to offer a few of my personal thoughts, not based on anything in particular. It appears to me that you are pathologizing sexuality, not only homosexuality or queerness, all of it. Human sexual desire is based on seeking out pleasure. Humans like to experience pleasure, and are going to be seeking it out, no matter what the status quo is. “Unusual” sexual relationships must have existed always. There are traces of it everywhere - I am not just talking about the Hellenistic stereotypes; but the fact that people like sex, and have always looked for it; and human sexuality is often fluid - you may develop intimate relationships with whoever. Gender is questioned nowadays, and for a good reason - have you ever loved a friend, and have you ever had sex with someone you don’t care about? Love and sex have been perverted by monotheism, desire to control and manipulate (yes, some “traditional” values were a necessity at the time of their emergence, but what necessitates prejudice now?). Childhood trauma and religious upbringing may lead certain individuals to develop “unhealthy” sexual preferences (due to the taboo; the forbidden fruit effect). But the question is, what is “inherently” harmful about homosexual relationships? The statistics may be skewed because we have many, MANY victims of trauma and abuse go without help and develop their own coping mechanisms that may or may not be connected to sexuality. The expression argument you offered seem to fall in the same category - people may develop fetishes due to various factors (religious trauma included). I don’t think you realise how much harm monotheistic religious indoctrination has brought upon the entire world. Religion goes hand in hand with patriarchy and “religious ethics” go very well with capitalist propaganda of the myth of meritocracy and the just world hypothesis. I am also noticing you going the “good old days” route; and seeing religion favourably. Monotheistic religions HAVE SMASHED people’s bonds with each other and nature. Religion has contributed LARGELY to the perversion of human desire. F. Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State gives a curious glimpse at the possible lack of “traditional” family in the past (the anthropological data has dated, of course; I’m not sure what the modern finds can point to). Overall, the fight for ALL of the oppressed people has to be our goal; yes, the performative imperialist pretence at diversity and inclusivity is a spectacle to divide us further; but we must cast aside individual views of ethics and strive for liberation of all.
It appears to me that you are pathologizing sexuality, not only homosexuality or queerness, all of it.
I’m not the one pathologising sexuality.
Sexuality has become a pathology in (particularly the West) where capitalism is degenerating and it supports the structures of bourgeios ideology. To collect sexual experiences like commodities. YOLO might encompass the selfish, entitled and promiscuity of capitalism in decay.
The same Marxists that are pro LGBT tend to be pro-prostitution and pro “sex work” quickly forgetting everything Marxists ever wrote on prostitution. As if anything of value is produced during sex instead of the rape and commodification of women. Even if we ignored the women at the bottom of the prostitution pile which are little more than raped slaves and we looked at the kulak sex workers on Tik Tok displaying their $50,000 income each month due to Only Fans work… Why would this be allowed in a socialist society? Where nothing of value is produced with these women pouring mustard on their feet or pissing in their mouths to furthers and deepens the already deranged pathology Western neoliberal societies have to sex and intimacy to the delight of the bourgeois and bourgeois men inparticular who love to have on tap access to working womens bodies
And to see the damage it does to individuals you need only see the response Tik toks of women disparaging the prostitutes gloating about their cash inflow and instead talking about the stalking and PTSD they’ve suffered by creating an Only Fans account.
“Unusual” sexual relationships must have existed always
See above. Agreed. However the trend to homosexuality, sexual pathology and pederasty occurs where the economic base of society is being rotted out. The Romans allowed pederasty alongside homosexuality because they viewed women as animals. Why have sex with an animal when you can have sex with a human?
The LGBT movement and the original activists for LGBT were a collection of pederasts and zionists. it’s a plain fact that the modern LGBT movement came from advocates of pederasty and “boy love”. Ulrichs, Wilde, Harry Hay, etc. NAMBLA was widely accepted as a good organization for LGBT rights until the media began talking about it.
For instance, here’s a pro-NAMBLA section from RFD, a gay magazine.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFD_(magazine)
Harry Hay and Morris Kight endorsing NAMBLA, it’s almost as if Harry Hay and Morris Kight are extremely important and influential LGBT activists that literally helped start Pride.
And just look at what words this magazine describes NAMBLA as. Intergenerational love is a great euphemism for pedophilia, isn’t it?
I’m not saying that all homosexual people are awful, or are all pedophiles but the trend toward the sexualisation of children happens in tandem with this phenomena and why people are teaching LGBTin schools to younger and younger ages - to reinforce this behaviour which serves bourgeois rule. The fact Communist Parties outside the imperial core are against LGBT should prompt you to think about this.
but the fact that people like sex, and have always looked for it; and human sexuality is often fluid - you may develop intimate relationships with whoever.
One wonders at the “intimacy” being developed off the back of a Tinder or Grindr hook up. Is genuine intimacy being fostered in todays sexual culture? I doubt it.
But the question is, what is “inherently” harmful about homosexual relationships?
Objectively nothing, but the LGBT movement as a political movement is objectively awful and supports imperialism and the complete atomisation of the individual
. I don’t think you realise how much harm monotheistic religious indoctrination has brought upon the entire world. Religion goes hand in hand with patriarchy and “religious ethics” go very well with capitalist propaganda of the myth of meritocracy and the just world hypothesis.
I do. It should raise your eyebrows that communities seek refuge in these religions from the neoliberal LGBT movement - which objectively bolsters religion in countries on the periphery of imperialism
I am also noticing you going the “good old days” route; and seeing religion favourably.
Again I don’t. See above.
F. Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State gives a curious glimpse at the possible lack of “traditional” family in the past
Origins of the family precisely traces with advent of civilisation sexuality deviating away from promiscuity, polygamy, polygany and polyandry to monogamy. We can see in response the phenomena of where civilisation degrades and collapses the trend backward to homosexuality and pederasty
Interesting. I’ve had this poster saved for future reference, heh. I think we come from very different perspectives on this issue. I think ostracism from either side should not take place on an individual basis - individual representatives of marginalized groups should not be isolated from a movement, and their struggles should be acknowledged as a part of the collective struggle. “Identity politics” is a tactic that distracts our attention from our main goals of the universal liberation. Commodification of everything is absolutely happening; and we must address this through education - informal, if that’s all we have. We do have to be careful not to push folks away. Also, I do not see any necessity in moralising people’s sexual preferences. Monogamy is not in any form advanced or a sign of a highly developed society.
I think ostracism from either side should not take place on an individual basis
I’m not calling for ostracism and don’t care about peoples opinions on it - LGBT behaviour occurs in the superstructure of society and I’m concerned with the base. The only question that matters is “is LGBT ideology universal”?
The answer to that question, and the conclusion a lot of communist parties have come to, is a resounding “no”.
That without the mass consumer culture Western imperialism is used to and the hyper exploitation of the imperialised countries - who will never have access to this mass consumer culture and therefore reject LGBT ideology all the more fiercely, turning instead to their religion and traditional family ties.
