- 17 Nov 2017 02:28
#14863377
You always act like this, and then have to skulk out of the thread defeated.
19th century dudes could be homophobic in private correspondence. Has that really changed so much that you can be justifiably mock alarmed?
You also quote Lenin to support this view point...
And yet for some strange reason, you completely omit his conclusion:
This, for those of us that know anything about this, goes back well before to the old Connolly/DeLeon debate. The short of it is that DeLeon thought that we should start acting like we were in a socialist society because that's what we want.
Connolly argued that a socialist society would build socialist values, and you can't just pretend that we can immediately switch over without altering material conditions or reality.
And this latter bit is what Lenin was arguing. It's not for him to build a socialist society, he knows what he thinks and wants, but it is for the material world to change things—not his personal feelings.
Obviously one cannot expect a hysterical right-winger to understand that actions can be taken rationally instead of placating his little fee-fees, but that we Marxists value logic.
A claim you already won't defend by the time I reply.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Rich wrote:Oh goodness me this is going to be fun.
You always act like this, and then have to skulk out of the thread defeated.
Here's a letter From Engels to Marx who totally concurred with his view. "Urning" means homosexual.
19th century dudes could be homophobic in private correspondence. Has that really changed so much that you can be justifiably mock alarmed?
You also quote Lenin to support this view point...
Rich wrote:It was the right wing Liberal Kadet party that pushed liberalisation of homosexuality after the February revolution not Lenin or the Bolsheviks
And yet for some strange reason, you completely omit his conclusion:
Lenin wrote:At that time the preaching was more talented than it is today, and as for the practice, I cannot judge. I don’t mean to preach asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age of revolution that is bad, very bad.
This, for those of us that know anything about this, goes back well before to the old Connolly/DeLeon debate. The short of it is that DeLeon thought that we should start acting like we were in a socialist society because that's what we want.
Connolly argued that a socialist society would build socialist values, and you can't just pretend that we can immediately switch over without altering material conditions or reality.
And this latter bit is what Lenin was arguing. It's not for him to build a socialist society, he knows what he thinks and wants, but it is for the material world to change things—not his personal feelings.
Obviously one cannot expect a hysterical right-winger to understand that actions can be taken rationally instead of placating his little fee-fees, but that we Marxists value logic.
To claim Fascism was on some kind of crusade against homosexuals is a disgusting Cultural Marxist lie. Heinrich Himmler was most certainly a homicidal homophobe, but before his own hubris and Himmler's scheming brought him down the notorious and open Homosexual Ernst Roehm led a para military organisation of over million men.
A claim you already won't defend by the time I reply.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!