Comrad Queers Unite

[scott snedeker]

I have been reading Karl marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party

Anybody read this and see parallels to the fight against oppression of Gay folk 170 years later?

[antiochian]

Must say I've never read it. I have some reservations when it comes to communism (Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were not exactly champions of human freedom). I do think Marx had some good ideas, and this sounds like something worth checking out.

[RedneckDyke]

I admit that I am a capitalist. I like buying and selling. Selling my beef pork, and vegetables. Then using the money and buying ice cream and magazines. (-:

[Gennee]

I read this book in college. In theory it sounds great, in pratice it was an abysmal failure.


Gennee

[Vortex]

I have some reservations when it comes to communism (Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were not exactly champions of human freedom)

nor were they exactly champions of communism

I have been reading Karl marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party

Anybody read this and see parallels to the fight against oppression of Gay folk 170 years later?

To the extent Marx and Engles viewed capitalism as oppression of one group over another, yes it certainly parallels well with any group that see itself facing an injustice.

It’s good that you are reading the source material, you may find it to be a little different from how communism has been labeled throughout history and how it is still thought of today, but as they say, “to the victor, goes history”

Vortex

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Gennee

In theory it sounds great, in practice it was an abysmal failure.


Gennee

I agree.


Rick

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Vortex

nor were they exactly champions of communism




To the extent Marx and Engles viewed capitalism as oppression of one group over another, yes it certainly parallels well with any group that see itself facing an injustice.

It’s good that you are reading the source material, you may find it to be a little different from how communism has been labeled throughout history and how it is still thought of today, but as they say, “to the victor, goes history”

Vortex

I have indeed found the writing to be very different from the labell communism has in popular talk.

Did you know that In the Communist Manifesto is outlined:

The right to Vote
The right to a jury by peers
The right to own firearms
The right own shares of stock in a manufacturing company
The right to education


My point is, Unless you have read it recently, all you know about it is what others want you to know about it. It is a historical treatise of oppression that reads and elements of social restructuring. Much of it reads like the Republican party line

[scott snedeker]

[The Bourgeouisie, by] subjugation of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry... clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers...is like a sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the power of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells...It is enough to mention the crises that by their periodical return, put on trial (each time more threateningly) the existence of... Society

Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist party, 1838
karl-marx-peace.jpg

[Ozgeorge]

In the Marxist approach, the conflict is viewed as a conflict between the "classes", and, tempting as it may be to view the issue of GLBT rights in society terms of the "oppressor" vs. "the oppressed", I think there is some danger in doing so.
Firstly, even if such a conflict exists between an "oppressing class" and an "oppressed class", the solution is not necessarily the "defeat" of one of the classes over the other. One of the most powerful (and in many ways, "prophetic") messages that GLBT people give to the world is that "there is another way". There is some evidence that in fact, this was once an honoured prophetic role in society (as in the example of the "Niizh manidoowag" or "Two-Spirited" people in tribal society. In a similar way, I think part of the "prophetic role" of GLBT people in modern societies is in showing that not everything is "black and white" and that there are other ways to resolve conflict other than by one class "triumphing" over another class. This, I believe, is where "Relentless, Non-Violent Resistance" is essential.
Secondly, if we want to apply Marxist class-conflict theory to the struggle for GLBT rights, then the most obvious question we need to ask is "if GLBT people constitute one of the classes in the conflict, who constitutes the opposing class in the conflict?" Is it the Government? Is it homophobic people? Is it all "Social Conservatives" (whatever that means)? Is it an amalgamated group of all people who opposes GLBT rights? And if so, what do the members of this "class" share in common other than opposing GLBT rights? For instance, you have rich, powerful people opposing gay civil unions, but you also have poor disenfranchised but devout Roman Catholic housewives who also oppose gay civil unions- but what do these people have in common other than opposing gay civil unions? They probably despise each other, so could they really be said to constitute a "class" in Marxist terms, especially since, in Marxist theory, they themselves belong to different socio-economic classes? I just can't see how it would be helpful to define the problem in terms of class conflict, and even if it was helpful, the question remains: what is the solution?
Thirdly, I espy a danger inherent in considering supporters of GLBT rights (or in fact anyone) as belonging to a "class". I can see a "queer community", that is, a group of people with a shared culture, but the moment you think of it as a "class", you are making a value judgement. To illustrate, Jews and Gypsies are cultural groups, but if we start talking about Jews or Gypsies as a "class" of people, what are we actually saying? Sharing a common culture doesn't (and shouldn't) make people a "class" in the same way that the "lower middle class" is a class. The "lower middle class" can include people from disparate cultural groups. A "lower middle class Thai Pureland Buddhist" is vastly different to a "lower middle class Celtic Protestant", and the only thing they may share in common is their socioeconomic status.
People who support GLBT rights come from many socioeconomic classes and many different cultures, as do those who oppose GLBT rights. I really don't think they can be considered "classes", but at most they are "cultural groups", and the only definitive thing we can say about the common culture of these groups is that they either support or oppose GLBT rights.

[scott snedeker]

Intreresting take . I was actually referring to the oil spill in the gulf and Capitalist abuse and exploitation the planet's resource that they falsely think they alone are entitled to.

BP's Oil Drilling and the oil fields of the planet would be a classic target "bourgeois property" that Marx demanded should be transferred from private ownership to wealth shared equally among people in a society.

As far as Heterosexist Oppression of Gay folk, I believe there are a lot of Marxist concepts that apply now that you mention it. The power of Capitalists was so great because of their overwhelming influence in justice, banks, legislature etc was that the only way to immediately end their oppression was through revolution and the strength of a united class to accomplish it.

Similarly heterosexism and heterocentric thinking is inbued in the foundation of Modern governments, Business, Systems of Justice, Military, Legislature around the world that similar tactics were necessary...... and in some ways may be today.

Previous examples of The Stonewall riots and Gay activists taking over the microphone during a psyciatric conference in the early 1970's were essential elements in ending the open and customary abuse and torture of gays in America.



What is often missing from the experience of soome one who is not gay is the direct effect of Heterosexist Oppression.

I have had police refuse to answer a 911 call or file a report of violence because I was just a f--in' faggot. I have been grabbed at a German social event and removed because I was dancing with my friend. I cannot adopt my neice and nephew if my brother and his wife are killed in an auto accident, because it is illegal for a gay person to do so in my state. I can be fired for being gay with no legal recourse.

This is not history. This is not hypothetical. This is not in Africa somewhere. This is right here, today, right now!

Imagine a non-gay person experiencing such in a given month. If one had, I would guess that some sense of complacency would be replaced with a sense of urgency. I would also suspect that awareness of the existence and impact of the Violence of Heterosexist Oppression would generate in one a more developed sensitivity toward Gay folks.

Awareness generally does this.

I agree, however that unrelenting resistant nonviolence is the best way to have a society evolve...most of the time. There are times when the better option is to tear down the oppressor.

The major weakness in the Marxist theory I see is the assumption of the existence of a benign State. My interpretation is that he theorized that a benign nonviolent state could be achieved through the path of violent revolution and then created by an organization composed of those same people.

Now I do not compare my intelligence to his. I'm sure he out-stripped my IQ by decades of points, but I have actually stayed on a successful commune. It is successful not because it opposes or fights. It is successful because it attracts and grows. Little by little the surrounding area is transforming to a knder, cooperative atmosphere.

[Ozgeorge]

I'm not denying the existence of oppression of gay people. What I'm denying is the application of Marxist theory to this, since the oppressors are not a social class, and I think that it is potentially oppressive to consider gays (the oppressed) as a social class as well.
I'm all for communal living. I'm a Christian, and Christianity started as a communist lifestyle as evidenced by its own Scriptures:
"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. "(Acts 2:44-45) Communal life is more than just a "nice idea", its actually an imperative in my Faith (Eastern Orthodox Christian). Our central act of worship is "Holy Communion"- which in my Church is a commonly shared Sacrificial Meal eaten from a commonly shared Spoon. So if our central act of worship is to all eat from one spoon, this should be the benchmark of how we live our lives with others. I'm not afraid of communism in the least! In fact, I encourage it! But I don't think that class conflict is essential to communism. In other words, Marxism and Communism are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable terms.
I have to disagree though, that violence, or to "tear down the oppressor" is a good option. I think that if we see any form of violence as being a moral good, it just makes us oppressors. I can see the need for self-defence, and sometimes violence is needed here (as in a nation defending itself against direct attack), but I think such self-defensive violence is the lesser of moral evils rather than being morally good. Violence, even self-defensive violence, can never be "morally just" in my opinion; it can only be "less morally evil" than the evil perpetrated by a violent attack which requires the self-defence. I work with the mentally ill, and when someone is floridly psychotic, they can't be "reasoned" with. I can try to de-escalate them if they are escalating towards aggression, but sometimes I've had to restrain them physically and force them to take sedation by injection. Physically and chemically restraining someone can never be "good", but the outcome for everyone including the mentally ill person is "less bad" than if they were to harm themselves or someone else in their psychosis. Sometimes I have stood there and let the psychotic person abuse the hell out of me, spit at me, threaten me, and even hit me on several occasions (as there was no other option), and either they have realised on some level what they have done and stopped, or they have worn themselves out and stopped. So I know from personal experience that non-violence does work even in a violent crisis. But I think one has to be well trained at it.