[The Immortal Goon]

Stalin rehabilitated the church, something the church pretends didn't happen; he regulated all but the most conservative art; he regulated marriage, which had been allowed to go into the confusing marriage of three and four; he banned homosexuality, something that still affects Russia today; he kept old gender roles, dissolving any organization that promoted women and instead enforcing religious norms; and other things.

He was socially conservative in that, irony of ironies, he was the first modern pro-lifer that recognized a role of church in state. But that was a century ago. For a communist he swung far to the right. For a communist a century ago.

[Andrea_Chenier]

Did Stalin or any other person leave behind theoretical writings on conservative communism? Or was there really no theoretical backing to Stalinism?

Stalin never officially affirmed a concept such as conservative communism in his numerous writings, although there do contain several traces of social conservatism. I just found an example that I had in mind, it might be of interest for you:

Women are playing an enormous part in public education and in public health. The Soviet State highly values the fine work of women teachers, who are educating our youth in the spirit of high ideals, of love for our Motherland, and of women doctors who safeguard the health of the population. Scores of thousands of women teachers and public health workers have been awarded Orders and medals.

The education of the children is the honourable social duty of mothers. Motherhood and the rearing of children in the U.S.S.R. are honoured and respected. The Soviet State assigns enormous funds to aid mothers with large families and unmarried mothers: 2,500,000 mothers have been awarded the Order "Motherhood Glory" and the "Motherhood Medal". The title "Mother Heroine" has been conferred on 28,500 women.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/women/cccp.htm

The emphasis on motherhood as an essential foundation of society, plus the proud talk of the motherland are not quite what you would expect from a progressive far-leftist these days. Yet, they often merge with marxist thought in the theoretical work of comrade Stalin.

[Rei Murasame]

I also know Vietnam continues to have a rather hardline attitude toward homosexuality

Depends on how far back you go. 10 years ago there was nothing. But now they are the 'leading advocate in Asia for gay people'.

[...]

Vietnam seems an unlikely champion of gay-rights issues. It is routinely lambasted by the international community over its dismal human rights record, often locking up political dissidents who call for democracy or religious freedom.

Up until just a few years ago, homosexuality was labeled as a “social evil” alongside drug addiction and prostitution.

And Vietnam’s gay community itself was once so underground that few groups or meeting places existed. It was taboo to even talk about the issue.

But over the past five years, that’s slowly started to change. Vietnam’s state-run media, unable to write about politically sensitive topics or openly criticize the one-party government, have embraced the chance to explore gay issues. They have run lengthy newspaper stories and television broadcasts, including one live special that won a top award.

Video of Vietnam’s first publicized gay wedding went viral online in 2010, and a few other ceremonies followed, capturing widespread public attention.

The Justice Ministry now says a legal framework is necessary because the courts do not know how to handle disputes between same-sex couples living together. The new law could provide rights such as owning property, inheriting and adopting children.

“I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,” Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong said Tuesday in an online chat broadcast on national TV and radio. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.”

And:

In a press release to the media to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia on May 17, the world body praised the Government and people for the achievement.

It quoted Pratibha Mehta, the UN's Resident Coordinator in Vietnam, as saying that the UN is very encouraged to see Vietnam's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community engaging in stronger, more constructive dialogue with the Government as well as the wider public.

"This is vital in order to be better understood, to reduce social prejudice and stigma based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and to contribute to development of relevant legislation to ensure the rights of the community are protected."

Same-sex relations continue to be criminalised in 78 out of 193 countries, with seven slapping the death penalty, according to the UN.

The UN pledged support for Vietnam's efforts to ensure that all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are removed to enable everyone to enjoy their human rights.

Also on May 17, UNAIDS, Ho Chi Minh City's Association of HIV/AIDS Prevention, and the LGBT community in the city organised the first ever seminar demanding better rights for the community, especially access to healthcare services.

At the event, members of the city People's Council, Women's Union, Ministry of Health, and families of LGBT people expressed understanding for the community.

Several mothers with gay children talked about their shock at knowing their children are homosexual and then becoming sympathetic towards them.

One recalled giving her son a knife and asking him to kill her because she could not bear the thought of an only son being gay. "He hugged and promised me he will make me proud of him for the rest of my life."

Now she loves and completely accepts her son, an outstanding student at the Ho Chi Minh City Pedagogy University.

Nguyen Thi Hong Hanh, whose son is gay, said discrimination against LGBT people, who too contribute much to society, is unfair.

Huynh Minh Thao, communication manager at Information Connecting and Sharing, an organisation that has contributed much to the gay rights campaign in Vietnam, said he recognised the change for the better in the conception about LGBT people compared to a few years ago.

"It is not easy to change mind of a person. Vietnam is leading Asian countries in the development of homosexual people's rights."

When asked by surprised foreign journalists, he told them that being generous and kind-hearted is the way of the Vietnamese.

The local media also contributed to the change, carrying many stories about discrimination against homosexuals and gradually creating a change in the thinking of authorities, he said, adding that the change that has occurred in Vietnam follows an international trend.

He thought the laws will soon be changed to recognise same-sex marriages, but said more important will be the attitude of society towards LGBT people.

Basically, the party created by Ho Chi Minh was always more progressive on gender issues than that of Joseph Stalin. Vietnam was after all, one of the countries that provided a working model of deliberately integrating women into the core of the revolutionary process. Pre-integration rather than merely promising nicer treatment.

So in a way - despite what the Washington Times writes - it is not really that surprising that Vietnam ended up coming out ahead of the rest of South East Asia on accepting homosexuality as well. The propensity to accept this stuff with minimal effort on the part of the advocates, is in the DNA of Ho Chi Minh Thought, because Ho Chi Minh Thought is totalitarian and progressive. Which is not a bad thing.

[Piccolo]

A lot of great replies here, thank you all. How much of Stalin's social conservatism was based on issues such as demographics? My understanding is that many European countries were concerned with low birth rates after World War I, so pro-natalism was big not just in the USSR but in countries such as France, Italy, and Germany, and pro-natalists could be found all over the political spectrum.

So, was Stalinism really a unique form of socially conservative communism or just an aberration, a part of a wider trend in European family policy?

Interesting, even after the Soviet Union made abortion legal again, the Soviet government continued their pro-natalist policies and discouraged women from having abortions. See link below.

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php? ... &Year=1956

[Verv]

Here is a question...

How would the Communists here feel about some Communist today insisting that the GLBTQ movement is irrelevant to the revolution, and still believing in some Stalinistic gender roles?

Obviously, such a person would not be particularly popular, and I understand that... But could we consider them as a valid Communist nonetheless?

And how important is the GLBTQ movement to a Communist, really? Like... If the Communists did succeed and let's say you were setting up everything the way you wanted, what would be the relavence of the GLBTQ thing in the society?

For instance... Would you support sexual reassignment programs for kids, and view this as a good agenda to start?

Would it be important to celebrate the GLBTQ thing, or would the aim just to be to have it treated as a normal occurrence and after the revolution there would be no need to pay special attention to it..?

What sort of special measures would be good?

I am just curious about the views of this, and how, say, pretty staunch Communists feel about it... And whether or not this is considered totally relevant to the Communist movement.

[Andrea_Chenier]

How would the Communists here feel about some Communist today insisting that the GLBTQ movement is irrelevant to the revolution, and still believing in some Stalinistic gender roles?

I would be happy about having a Comrade who still believes it's more important to focus on overthrowing capitalism than on identity politics.

Would it be important to celebrate the GLBTQ thing, or would the aim just to be to have it treated as a normal occurrence and after the revolution there would be no need to pay special attention to it..?

Well, this would be my way of handling the issue but I can't speak for communists in general here as I am a bit more socially conservative than most others. Of course I despise those who mistreat or in any way violate the dignity of other people based on sex or gender. However, I believe that the problem of discrimination derives from ignorance and class division in our society. Once a healthy socialist society were to be installed, the problem of sexual discrimination would fade away even without aggressive LGBT propaganda or reeducation. A post-revolution society simply wouldn't spwan ignorance-and frustration based hate anymore.

[fuser]

How would the Communists here feel about some Communist today insisting that the GLBTQ movement is irrelevant to the revolution, and still believing in some Stalinistic gender roles?

We had this discussion in our private subforum and generally as what I gathered from it, majority of leftist here are against identity politics (including obviously lgbt) which has become forefront of leftist discourse nowadays. And I was with the majority so I guess that answers it.



And as per rest of the post from where I belong the lgbt movement is hardly even a thing, but I am all for giving symbolic support to it just because it weakens (even if not highly successful) traditions, social conservatism and traditional gender norms and family structure.

[The Immortal Goon]

Yeah, we were all pretty much on the same page.

My position with citations and whatnot is here, if you're actually curious.

How would the Communists here feel about some Communist today insisting that the GLBTQ movement is irrelevant to the revolution, and still believing in some Stalinistic gender roles?... the aim just to be to have it treated as a normal occurrence and after the revolution there would be no need to pay special attention to it..?

I would be stoked. Because, as the above link says, this is the view of Connolly, Lenin, Kollontai, Trotsky, and virtually everyone else of value on the subject...that even brought it up at all. Most just ignore it because it's not really part of the struggle.

[Verv]

Thanks. Those were all good answers and I appreciate the responses.

I had always figured that this sort of newer sexual & gender identity movements, and nu-feminism, are all sort of their own very specific agendas.. I also have not that much respect for them because they seem entirely obsessed with such a small facet of our existence.

Rather than trying to use a broad philosophical view on history, economics and politics and using this to then to apply to smaller ideas, they try to take the small philosophy of a small thing and extrapolate from there to the world. It really becomes messy business quite quickly.

[Rei Murasame]

This is why communists have a habit of being subverted by whichever of their leaders is more socially conservative, because they prepare the conditions under which feminist objectives can be carried out, but then they refuse to talk to the public about the fact that they have done so.

And so then when Stalin shows up and just reverses everything by making up some ridiculous laws of his own, there is no resistance to such a thing be found anywhere, because for the entire time the communists refused to wage a war of position in civil society to get the new values accepted.

But if communists are not learning this lesson then it is not surprising that feminists are wary of collaborating with them.

[fuser]

You are expecting USSR to follow up with the feminist program of 21st century, even after all the reversals USSR was still most feminist state on planet.

As you were saying on another thread that "either women need to get off their ass and start working and contributing to gdp or get a fucking gun", this literally happened in USSR.

There should be obviously no fix agenda for anything, for there will be indeed difference in feminist (or any revolutionary program) program depending on where and when revolution is victorious.

Also,

And as per rest of the post from where I belong the lgbt movement is hardly even a thing, but I am all for giving symbolic support to it just because it weakens (even if not highly successful) traditions, social conservatism and traditional gender norms and family structure.

[Rei Murasame]

Okay. But when you say that you are "against identity politics", that does not square up with what you are now saying. Also, can someone explain to me why some aspects of the struggle - such as women, 50% of the population - are given the label 'identity politics' and derided, whereas others are not?

For example, why don't you say that the class war itself is a form of 'identity politics'? There are some people out there who are proletarians, they don't want their faces to be stepped on by the bourgeoisie. How is that not 'identity politics'?

Frankly, I think that communists are just wiggling around because for reasons known only to themselves, they don't want to be seen as defending issues that social conservatives have been accusing them of being a part of for the past couple decades. So in some kind of weird reversal, whenever you are asked you all are like "nope, we don't aim to do that".

[fuser]

You are coming off as a liberal feminist. 50% women are not a monolithic bloc, why should I bother with Bourgeoisie women.

For example, why don't you say that the class war itself is a form of 'identity politics'?

This will be semantics, class war (even if its identity politics) is the major thing that should concern Marxists and not other identities. So, when we say say identity politics, it obviously means all other identities except for class. And then identity politics (if we compare it with class identities) will mean that several other identities like two major sexual identities are primarily at odd against each other, a theory that obviously is not supported by Marxism.

they don't want to be seen as defending issues that social conservatives have been accusing them of being a part of for the past couple decades. So in some kind of weird reversal, whenever you are asked you all are like "nope, we don't aim to do that".

But we totally aim to be doing that, its just that nowadays leftist discourse is centred around identity politics rather than focusing on the most important thing i.e. class.

[Decky]

Some see "identity politics" as a specific thing. You can belive in avancing the position of women (econmically, with votes, by shooting people who do not think they should have control of their bodies, be leveling Afghan villages with atack helecopters etc) without subcribing to "idenity politics" (moaning about the glass ceiling and other liberal stuff).

Sigh, yet another problem caused by definitions. I hope that helps Rei? I think you are talking about idenity politics as something all encompasing that includes to good stuff as well as the fluff?

[fuser]

Some see "identity politics" as a specific thing. You can belive in avancing the position of women (econmically, with votes, by shooting people who do not think they should have control of their bodies, be leveling Afghan villages with atack helecopters etc) without subcribing to "idenity politics" (moaning about the glass ceiling and other liberal stuff).

And this. in much less words hits the issue in the head.

[Decky]

I really am wonderously marvoulous aren't I?

[Rei Murasame]

I'm just beginning to think that your attempt to 'separate the good stuff from the fluff', is an attempt to please social conservatives, because you don't want them to throw the word 'liberal' at you. It's disappointing to see it, but there you are.

I should support liberal-progressives against you on these issues instead (since at least they keep up a sustained culture-war on these issues), because you guys are scared of social conservatives. You are fine with unloading a hail of gunfire into Afghan villages so as to kill reactionary scum, but you are scared to say why you did it.

It's not a problem caused by definitions, it's a problem caused by the fact that you don't want to acknowledge that the original class antagonism was between a man and a woman. Which is ironic, considering the fact that it was a communist who first realised it.

[fuser]

It's not a problem caused by definitions, it's a problem caused by the fact that you don't want to acknowledge that the original class antagonism was between a man and a woman. Which is ironic, considering the fact that it was a communist who first realised it.

Who doesn't want to acknowledge that, exactly? The fact is that we are not living in that era any more, so why our policies should be dictated by conditions of the times that are long gone by.

[Rei Murasame]

If you all believe that it doesn't apply anymore, then indeed you shouldn't have policies related to it. This thread has been pretty eye-opening for me, since it's disabused me of an incorrect notion that I've held for quite a long time.

I had become too secure in the idea that my view of Marxism on gender was actually overlapping with what actual communists think about it now. But obviously there is not really an overlap at all, I'm getting what I want from it, because that's what I was looking for.

But since I'm not a communist, obviously I would be getting something completely different out of it.

[fuser]

If you all believe that it doesn't apply anymore, then indeed you shouldn't have policies related to it.

Yes, In the context of what I said there is no more two classes called, men and women, just to be clear.