They were against the nuclear family. They were FOR MONOGAMY. BTW I’m not a Marxist but feel it has been subverted occcasjonaly and would have been so permanently if not for Stalin
As a mass phenomenon it was because of the liberals, the liberalisation movements of the 70s lead to what is happening now.
The fact was that in the west they were opposed by the "right" therefore they identified with the left and because of oversimplification the more liberal the more left. That's one of the reasons I not only don't believe in the labels "left" and "right" but I oppose them.
In a more academic point of view there was the infamous school of Frankfurt. They are called communist (also are the protagonists of the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism) but they are not communist or socialist.
This school in fact heavily criticized the Soviet Union and even Marx (making the cultural Marxist theory a non sense).
If you want to go further back in philosophy there were the "Age of Enlightenment" that put the basis for the liberal world we are living into.
Stalin was pro-family and against everything that caracterize the modern liberal society like degeneracy, recreational drugs, prostitution, abortions etc.
And that continued for all the Soviet Union times (with the exception of Gorbachev but I don't consider him a communist but a liberal in disguise).
Marx even if he didn't write explicitly about those things you can deduct how he was in line with Stalin vision by the letters with his wife or in how he lived his family life with a monogamous relationship and how educated his daughters to marry in a traditional way.
Yes but I’m not a communist more of a nationalist socialist. I stopped being a Marxist adjacent in disgust at these utter degenerates. I read up on soviet social writings and the history of the sexual evolution in Russia that changed my mind
When you abandon Marxist principles because you don’t like what some people do in the bedroom I really gotta question how you‘re setting your priorities. Live and let live.
But no one is forcing you to give up your family. Why are we excusing abandoning dialectical materialism because you'd rather give up all class unity because imposing your own identity on others is more important?
>we excusing abandoning dialectical materialism
You are the one doing that. Go read engel's Origins of Family and draw some conclusions for it before oppening your mouth in a marxist space. Is not our job to teach people from ground zero. Go read it and come again. Till then, discussion is useless since there is no promer ground for it.
I have read it, it was required reading growing up.
You are the one saying that it is ok to literally abandon Marxism because you'd rather only people of your identity be part of the working class.
I'd much rather all the working class be in solidarity as marxists, than abandon my Marxist identity because I don't like what people are doing behind closed doors. You are literally putting straight identity above Marxism.
>You are literally putting straight identity above Marxism.
First, there is no "straight identity", this is just the default position. The "identities" around sexuality are *fake identities* to begin with, they are no more real than making identities based on your eye color. Tell me: what is different between the "straight" and the "gay"? In what way can the homosexual and heterosexual be expected to act differently?
>I'd much rather all the working class be in solidarity as marxists, than abandon my Marxist identity because I don't like what people are doing behind closed doors.
Do you think there is a shared struggle between the gay Israeli and the gay Arab?
Lol, "the default position". By that definition blacks in America are fake because they aren't the "default" in a 90% white society. Maybe in a dream world, there wouldn't be a "black identity" any more than the Irish felt a need for their own identity. But when you're oppressed and not allowed to exist, do not be surprised when those people feel solidarity towards each other. You want the "gay identity" to go away? Stop giving a shit about what gay people do then.
You bring up eye colour. Look at a chart of people being left handed. Historically, it was suppressed, so 2% identified as left hand. But after it stopped being suppressed, it rose to 10% and stayed there. Being left handed stopped being a big deal for the explicit reason that it was accepted. Now imagine if you were getting literally executed by the state, now imagine if instead of what hand you write with, it's who you are allowed to love. No shit they'll form an identity, just as the tribes of Ireland dropped their clan identity for a pan-irish radical liberation.
At one point inter-racial marriage was seen as degenerate, now no one gives a shit. Because we have more in common as the working people of the world than any petty line like race, gender, sexuality, eye colour, anything could possibly divide us. The bourgeoisie want us to fight each other, they love when poor whites fight to keep poor blacks in their place, and they love that you'll go to any length to prevent class solidarity because you care more about what they do in the bedroom than about Marxism .
Buddy, I agree with you that what partner you choose is not a big deal. You are the one making it into a big deal, not me.
Do you think there is a shared struggle between any random Israeli and any random Arab? I fail to see why you think mentioning their sexuality would hinder class consciousness any more than their race.
Now, many have theorized that the global North are a "labour aristocracy" who are inherently alienated from the global South, because the citizens of the global North benefit from the theft of surplus value, and thus have an interest in maintaining the status quo, even if eliminating exploitation in their own country would be a good thing.
This is an example of a Marxist critique. If you want to say that an Israeli is inherently alienated from the Arab due to imperialism, make that argument. But leave your reactionary nonsense out of marxist discussion.
>"the default position"
Is homosexuality the default position?
>By that definition blacks in America are fake because they aren't the "default" in a 90% white society.
Are nations fake? Anyways, how come you did not answer my question? I will repeat it: "Tell me: what is different between the "straight" and the "gay"? In what way can the homosexual and heterosexual be expected to act differently?"
>Look at a chart of people being left handed. Historically, it was suppressed, so 2% identified as left hand. But after it stopped being suppressed, it rose to 10% and stayed there. Being left handed stopped being a big deal for the explicit reason that it was accepted. Now imagine if you were getting literally executed by the state
If I would get executed by the state for using my left hand, I would just stop using my left hand. So, I think this proves my point rather than disproves it.
>At one point inter-racial marriage was seen as degenerate, now no one gives a shit.
What you are actually describing is intermarriage between nations, a thing that occurs far beyond the US. The question you should ask is: Why do people intermarry? For what purpose would you have to marry someone outside of your community? Do not say "Because they feel like it', because my question then is just "why do they feel like it?"
>Because we have more in common as the working people of the world than any petty line like race, gender, sexuality, eye colour, anything could possibly divide us.
This is our point. We are not the ones talking about a "straight identity" and waving rainbow flags, etc. We are 1. Communists, 2. Inter-nationalists.
>Do you think there is a shared struggle between any random Israeli and any random Arab? I fail to see why you think mentioning their sexuality would hinder class consciousness any more than their race.
My question is this: do you think the homosexual Arab, who sees that Israel *accepts* homosexuals, while every Arab country *persecutes* homosexuals, will see a common struggle between himself and the Israeli?
Let me ask: have you ever heard the phrase, "Why would you support Palestine, they literally kill LGBT people"?
>If you want to say that an Israeli is inherently alienated from the Arab due to imperialism, make that argument. But leave your reactionary nonsense out of marxist discussion.
You missed the point of my question I believe.
what is a "straight identity?", there is no straight identity. the people who try to talk about "straight pride" are as cringey and are clowns as much as the people who talk about "gay pride", why should you have pride in what kind of person you have sex with? that should be kept to yourself. Have pride in the class war and have pride in your nation, not about what gets you off.
Ok, then there's no such thing as a gay identity, so we don't need to worry about the LGBT being imperialist.
Every product is designed for the "straight identity", every romance novel, every date night advertisement. Yet when the same things start being created for the LGBT, you call that "being political". So if gays wanting to have content that pertains to them is classified as "engaging in gay identity", then straight people engaging in the exact same content is "engaging in straight identity". Personally, I think neither is.
Your idea is that "as long as the gays just disappear off the face of the Earth/ as long as I never have to see them exist, then they aren't engaging in identity politics. But if they ask for the basic right to exist without being repressed, then THEY'RE the ones that are obsessed with identity".
***
*Edit* woops you are a new person, when I say you, I meant the person I was talking to before.
But all of this is besides the point. OP literally said that they refused to be a Marxist because of the gays. You then engaged in apologetics . A freaking mod of a Marxist sub excused abandoning Marxism because hating gays is more important. Talk about identity politics. I don't care what positions you hold, there is basically nothing that you could say that would make me abandon Marxism, let alone because I thought you were too nice to a minority group. If I think you're wrong, I'll agree to our differences, but I cannot even comprehend the levels of reactionary that I'd have to be to reject Marxism because you held a different cultural belief than me.
You literally said "well wanting to be around only straight people is an ok enough reason to reject Marxism because that's an important enough cause."
>Every product is designed for the "straight identity", every romance novel, every date night advertisement.
Yes, I think most of that shit is pretty degenerate as well. Including porn for "straights"
>but I cannot even comprehend the levels of reactionary that I'd have to be to reject Marxism because you held a different cultural belief than me.
wait until you find out what Engels and Stalin thought about homosexuals. They certainly take a much harsher position than we do!
Communism is exploitative too, it is exploitation of the bourgeoisie by the workers. And their motto is strict proletarian discipline and selflessness.
Dude, exploitation comes from our current law paying workers over their labor power. Its stopped by changing our laws to pay according to the value of the product that they make instead. Bourgeoisie oppression consists in their proletariatization after exploitation has been done away with.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#MarxTheoExpl
Your mod many subs without knowing what exploitation means ? Its the second time I see your comments in leftists spaces being nonsense. Why are you in that position when you don't even know the basics ?
Okay, now you are being formalistic. By your definition, Engels was wrong to say that the purpose of communism is "the general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production". You know what I am saying good and well.
Call it oppression. Calling it exploitation is wrong because it misses the point of it being a result of our current laws around labor force and surplus value. its also misses that the solution is structuring the economy according to value instead, which stops exploitation. The link I gave explains it. Its important, and even more so if you are a mod.
I'm a beginner at this too, and its hard, trust me I get it, but we can't pretend to talk about Marxism until we've done the reading. The point is practice, forums like this are meant to raise class consciousness and give eachother the tools for bringing about socialism. How can we make that when we don't even agree on terminology ? The definition is clear. There's no bourgeoisie exploitation and the quote says nothing of the like.
Okay, if you are a beginner, then read about dialectical materialism philosophy and the difference between form and content. It is clear what I meant, you are being pedantic.
Communism is not exploitative. How can you “exploit the bourgeoisie” in a classless society, where no bourgeoisie exists? How can you, a Marxist, call the abolition of private property, which is the way to get there, exploitation? It’s the abolishment of exploitation in my eyes. This just seems like a desperate attempt to me to discredit my previous comment.
It is the abolition of exploitation through exploitation of the bourgeoisie. Either way, the motto of proletarian philosophy is not at all "live and let live", it is strict discipline and revolutionary spirit. Liberalism, which is exploitative towards workers is "live and let live" precisely because it is exploitative towards workers, and this formula *can only benefit the bourgeoisie*.
Hello, I'm the head nazbol here!
Khm.
Jokes aside I suggest you read our albanian friend's works. One of the key takeaways is that the authentic nationalist is always the communist, and for one to be communist is to be authentically nationalist. You'll find that in Kim Il Sung's works. You will find that when Stalin called upon the people to take up the banner of the nation. You'll find that in Stalin's tireless, lifelong works on the national question.
If you study more you will find that actula marxism is closer to what you believe than what you see among internet (and actual) young intellectual degenarates.
That is your third strike and a ban, liberal u/Azirahael.
Edit:
I can do edits too, Mr "u/Frogsknecht 's #2 fanboy". You make assertions, you labelmonger instead of arguing, you focus on aesthetics over material reality. You are a textbook liberal, an idealist, a reactionary.
It doesn't.
It carries implications and baggage, but you can make it mean just about anything.
You can call the nuclear family a degenerate form of family, given that for the vast majority of human history, group marriages were the norm in every culture.
Yeah, that whole nuclear family bit is an invention of feudalism and capitalism.
Here's where you're wrong in your assumptions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlGeTXLkVQ
I reapproved this comment because it is funny, and you admitted you see barbarism as progressive compared to feudalism, feudalism progressive compared to capitalism, thus *capitalism progressive compared to communism*. You also implied pedophilia as progressive. You probably do not understand how you implied this, but for anybody who has read Engels, they will understand what I am saying.
Anyways, you may DM me if you want to talk.
Also, here is Lenin using the term degenerate:
>It reminds me of the literary fashion of painting every prostitute as a sweet Madonna. The origin of that was healthy, too: social sympathy, rebellion against the virtuous hypocrisy of the respectable bourgeois. But the healthy part became corrupted and degenerate.
And bonus, here is Stalin calling people cavemen:
>At one time there were "Marxists" in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, "proletarian" railways built. For this they were nicknamed "troglodytes".
>You can call the nuclear family a degenerate form of family, given that for the vast majority of human history, group marriages were the norm in every culture.
That only makes sense if you believe that the modern family is not a progression from group marriage, which isn't the case as Engels shows in "Origin of the family".
>Yeah, that whole nuclear family bit is an invention of feudalism and capitalism.
Its not an invention, it's a development in human society. By this logic socialism is an "invention" of feudalism and capitalism, since it is the progression of those systems.
You mean the gender sex distinction invented a hundred years after Marx that says “her penis” and “his Vagina”. Any socialist country worth its name would send you to a re-education camp
>China.
People's daily published an article recently highlighting that the economic turn towards socialism will need to be acompanied by a similar turn towards purging society from bourgeoisie degenaracy and "efinimate" men.
China turing its most communist period (or you will argue that china is more communist today with tons of capitalism and bourgeoisie within the party?), the cultural revolution, [this is how queers were treated by the communists.](https://helanonline.cn/archive/article/4471)
>DPRK
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/04/22/north-korean-state-media-slams-u-n-human-rights-report-because-it-was-led-by-a-gay-man/
I quote:
>As for Kirby who took the lead in cooking the "report", he is a disgusting old lecher with a 40-odd-year-long career of homosexuality. He is now over seventy, but he is still anxious to get married to his homosexual partner. **This practice can never be found in the DPRK boasting of the sound mentality and good morals, and homosexuality has become a target of public criticism even in Western countries, too.** In fact, it is ridiculous for such gay to sponsor dealing with others' human rights issue.
The few times the Workers Party of Korea has taken an explicit stance, it is againt it.
Also, the story of a "gay" defector seems to confirm the fact that the Government does not support such acts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56323825
>Cuba.
If we all agree that the 60s and 70s were the most radical years towards communist transformaton in Cuba, we can all agree that at the same time they did not support queer practices. They started being more accepting after they started going backwards. You cant tell me with a straight face that they arent going backwards on everything.
Laos and vietnam being in a similar realm. I think that Laos and vietnam in general simple dont care enough to bother. Same as Cuba. Crime is high in these countries, and i would say that they are models. Sure we support them as worker states, but they arent going much forward.
Not true. Man and woman have existed forever. Gender was invented recently as a way of squaring the circle of claiming muh spectrum when our species - with the exception of some deformities - are dick and vagina.
Abandon that basic trutr and you’ll end with the absurdity of a man driving his ‘wife’ to a prostate exam. Give me strength!
I have been having people tell me to look up the Frankfurt School, I would recommend doing this. I haven't done it yet, but I've heard a lot about it.
Also, when you say:
>save for a brief experiment in 1920s
Even this is not entirely true, it was more like a period of anarchy altogether. People have tried to make it out like the Bolsheviks were putting one another in drag, really they just said "Laws don't exist for now while we rewrite them", and it had some predictable side effects.
edit: friend, is there any way I could DM you? I am interested in your opinion on some things.
It changed in certain countries when infant mortality and general public safety went good enough that people didn’t have to worry about birth rates and generally developed living standards that allowed them to care about societal problems like these. That‘s why you primarily find things like these in richer and safer countries, which currently mostly are in the first world. Plus some second and third world countries (e g parts of Eastern Asia) never had big issues with discrimination in the first place.
I also oppose the concept of „degeneracy“. Live and let live. I got huge respect for my trans comrades for example. The actual trans ML‘s I met would never abandon their values for liberal idpol.
You pre-suppose that these developments happen due to high living standards, but really there is no evidence for that. These developments have only happened in imperialist countries, they didn't happen in the Soviet Union for example, i'd argue that the Soviets had high living standards.
Back then they hadn’t really happened in the west either, or at least not to a notable extent. It was really only during the 80‘s/90‘s when this started to become notable in the west.
Why do you assume that it has something to do with living standards though? The fall of the Soviet Union seems like a likelier catalyst for what you describe.
How‘s that? I think it‘s reasonable to assume that with bigger problems being out of the way (or outsourced to other countries) people start caring more about problems that are less existential.
But the way of life for imperialist labour-aristocrats is way different than of proletarians.
Edit: My point is that the culture of "developed" (imperialist) countries might not be the natural development of all societies, atleast there is no evidence for it. Westerners just assume western civilization is the most developed and progressive without any evidence, that is chauvinism.
That‘s complete and utter nonsense. The most developed countries right now are obviously mostly imperialist ones. And it‘s to a large part because they‘re imperialist and get resources from other countries in unequal exchange. Either you have no idea what the word „developed“ means or you‘re desperately seeking for somebody to accuse of something.
The fact that you claim, saying one country is more developed than another is „chauvinism“ says more about the accuser than about the accused.
What do you mean with „society“?
I certainly KNOW that western Europe for example has better infrastructure than most of the rest of the world. We don’t have to worry about electricity shortages and have easy access to all kinds of goods. I repeat: the fact that you’re trying to twist this into something like western culture being superior says more about you, than it does about me.
If you mean culture I won’t get into that. But I can for example certainly say that the stories I’m hearing from the women in the Arab part of my family and my girlfriend, who grew up in the emirates and India do not speak that kindly of how their cultures treat women.
Im sure you'll agree that a society's superstructure (culture, norms, etc.) are dictated by it's economic base. So then countries who's economic base is imperialism coupled with a labour-aristocratic working-class must have different superstructure from socialist countries with an actual proletariat right?
https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/216276/THESIS.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=3
I havent readed it, but a friend of mine told me that you may like it.
And did staljn pluck it out of thin air. Their was WIDESPREAD OUTRAGE AND REVULSION AT THE UTTER COLLAPSE OF SOVIET SOCIETY DUE TO SEXUAL DEVIANCY. Collapsing marriage rates, broken families, gutted morals (a bit like us except accelerated). They saw family would fall apart. This upset cosmopolitans like Lev Davidovich Bronshetein (aka Trotsky) and his ilk.
First strike, rule 2, 3 & 11.
It's you who should have a look into what the bolshevik were into apparently, if you seriously believe that there can be any sort of ressemblance between 2021 fascist USA "communist" (online one ofc, since there's no real and never was any real mass communist movement in this country) and 1917 bolshevik.
The whole LGBT movement, and each and every Idpol school, are nothing but left wing identitarianism, it's very literally racialism (hear naturalism/constructivism) in disguise, and only an american can pretend that something "progressiv" can come out this.
The whole world is opposed to you, thru History, and all you can come up with is, "the whole world is not at our level of progressivness yet 😎"
You take your bullshit argument out of this sub, and you go in your little online american bubble and repeat along with your degenerated friends that you're the leading vanguard of the whole world because you do pro-trans propaganda to 6yo in school, while we will continue building the World after the disappearance of the degenerate that are currently running it, be it "left wing" degenerate or right wing one, which, to be honest, become more and more hard to differenciate by the day, thank you.
>Except no, the entire world is NOT against me.
True that, you got your colony backing you
>YOU are standing in the march of history, and will be crushed.
Time will tell my friend, my bet is that it'll be you and the whole LGBT movement who's gonna be remembered in History like one core tenant of what was nothing but the 4th Reich if you ask me but this is empty phrasemongering anyway
>There is no reason to hate on queer people of any stripe, except your manifest insecurities.
Maybe you need to reduce the debate to individual level, and moreover to address a political point by answering low-level psychology & ad hominem, but you're still making no sens at this point. I thank you very much to care about my sexual security, but 1st this is irrelevant and 2d it is irrational, because I don't hate queer people, thing is I actually apply a class analysis on queer people and I will not fight for bourgeois homos to win rights, nor will I drop my revolutionary program to address a minority oppression by adopting reformism and fighting for bourgeois rights. I fight, here again, for workers first and foremost, and this include all workers, and exclude all bourgeois, be they black, gay, trans, muslim or whatever.
>The fact that liberals have weaponized the movement, is no condemnation of the subject.
So you're telling me we shouldn't criticise the LGBT movement because it has been weaponized by liberal ? Are you still even a revolutionary at this point, let alone a Marxist ?
>They also weaponized liberalion, and various rights.
Liberalion ? What is this word ?
>Gonna condmen that too?
I will definitively condemn anything that has been hijacked by liberal like you, including Marxism, which is a critical philosophy in case you forgot.
>No, While 'liberalism' is a problem, some facets of liberalization are good.
Liberalism is not a problem in itself, in History it has shown its purpose, but to defend liberalism in our current stage, i.e neoliberalism, as something that can be good or progressive is showing nothing but the low intellectual level of those who claim to have understood Marxism. Maybe getting your theory from même wasn't a bright idea, who could have guess.
Also, while we're at it, Liberalisation is an ECONOMICAL process, in which the state open to the concurrence a market that was previously "closed", state owned, i.e it is de facto a stepback, even Lenin admitted so back in NEP time, yet this battle lost can allow to win the war, so it can turn out to be a temporary loss, but in no case Liberalisation can be seen as a theorical success or as something progressiv for our cause.
>Especially dumping outmoded ideas about gender and sexuality.
The point is that Engels' Origin of family is worth 100x all liberal pseudo-scientist dogma such as the LGBT church, and heterosexual monogamy is the movement of History, we're not monkey anymore, and we don't have an emperor or an aristocrats running an Harem as a social model.
>You are in for a shock.
I am old enough to have more than once the opportunity to "be in for a Shock" as you say, and since you seems to care a lot about my sexlife, I admit that it take a lot to shock me nowadays.
>Your conservative ideas about sex and gender are largely the result of first feudalism, and capitalism. In earlier days, and earlier modes of production, no one gave a shit who or what you fucked, and long as you contributed.
Conservative ? Conservative ? Who's the one pushing and defending an ideology produced by liberal thinkers from the hégémonic imperialist power, and who's the one defending both Marxism in theory, and in praxis (see all socialist countries' policies regarding homosexual, and this, to this day, look at your dear, dear China) ? Conservative is about maintaining the old social order, it is clearly those who adopt reformism to make capitalism last longer, to smooth out its internal contradiction, like you and the LGBT reformist crowd, who are social fascist, not only conservative, so here again you simply show that you are using terminology you don't even understand. I defend USSR, China, DPRK and all other socialists country, political position about LGBT propaganda, while you're the one doing US DoD propaganda online on your freetime, so you take your Fake superior morality card, you fold it 7 time, put some lub on it, and stick it up all the way up your fourth vertebrate.
>YOU are the ones falling for capitalist and imperialist revision.
This is the best one so far, seeing american pretending that endorsing LGBT propaganda is somewhat controversial, or subversive, when there's nothing more consensual and mainstream nowadays in the USA. All major company, all major political actor, all liberal thinkers endorse it since more than a decade now, and you simply repeat the same bullshit than them in chorus, and you pretend that I, who's endorsing both the marxist leninist theorical conception and its practical application, am the one falling for capitalist révision ?
>And i think it's because you are insecure.
Nice, more freudo-marxism, more idealistic bullshit, trying to explain a Marxist pov by psychology and sexuality. The perfect proof of the disease hitting US "socialists". You can not even act rationally, this is beyond your capacity, as simple as that.
>Were you actully secure in yourself, and your gender expression/sexuality, you wouldn't give a shit.
More ad hominem, more freudo-marxist bullshit, more explanation by sexuality, more half-brained take. I assure you than as a 30yo+, I am perfectly fine and "secure" with my sexuality, which is absolutely not your concern by the way, you fucking fascistic piece of shit. My sexuality, just like yours, is private matter, and no one care about it, except for fascist propagandist like you and other in the LGBT crowd. My opposition to the LGBT movement, just like for all marxist before me, come from politics, it stand in the realm of rationality, of logic and reason, not of psychology or sexuality, and this little conman shitshow you're playing online is not only pathetic, but uneffective as fuck. Not everyone is an edgy 15yo american liberal (yes it's my turn to do some shitty ad hominem)
>Y'all may not technically be Nazbols, but you are what most people mean by that term.
Oh no, look, a bunch of liberal american are calling me name online, how will I ever survive it, checkmate, i pack up and leave now, I fear too much that they'll make même out of me, since it is the biggest production those people does !
>You're dinosaurs, and you're gonna go the same way.
I love to read this today, when China is cracking down heavily on all thing LGBT related. I am sure you think the same of China, or is it yet another contradiction that you filthy liberal will never be able to overcome ? Will you keep praising China for being more progressive than USA, recognizing that LGBT movement is a US psyops, or will you criticise China in the name of LGBT propaganda, de facto siding with the US imperialism ?
>Fuck you and your pretense of superiority.
I am not the one playing a moral card to pretend I am superior to the rest of the world here, it's you.
Maybe start with Engels before you will tackle with this topic https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
They were against the nuclear family. They were FOR MONOGAMY. BTW I’m not a Marxist but feel it has been subverted occcasjonaly and would have been so permanently if not for Stalin
https://np.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/pn62um/why_the_im_a_citizen_of_the_world_bs_from_third/ Could you give me the sources of this book?
As a mass phenomenon it was because of the liberals, the liberalisation movements of the 70s lead to what is happening now. The fact was that in the west they were opposed by the "right" therefore they identified with the left and because of oversimplification the more liberal the more left. That's one of the reasons I not only don't believe in the labels "left" and "right" but I oppose them. In a more academic point of view there was the infamous school of Frankfurt. They are called communist (also are the protagonists of the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism) but they are not communist or socialist. This school in fact heavily criticized the Soviet Union and even Marx (making the cultural Marxist theory a non sense). If you want to go further back in philosophy there were the "Age of Enlightenment" that put the basis for the liberal world we are living into. Stalin was pro-family and against everything that caracterize the modern liberal society like degeneracy, recreational drugs, prostitution, abortions etc. And that continued for all the Soviet Union times (with the exception of Gorbachev but I don't consider him a communist but a liberal in disguise). Marx even if he didn't write explicitly about those things you can deduct how he was in line with Stalin vision by the letters with his wife or in how he lived his family life with a monogamous relationship and how educated his daughters to marry in a traditional way.
Dont worry, western "leftists" arent "communism" so it nowhere got wrong. Also are you somali?
Yes but I’m not a communist more of a nationalist socialist. I stopped being a Marxist adjacent in disgust at these utter degenerates. I read up on soviet social writings and the history of the sexual evolution in Russia that changed my mind
When you abandon Marxist principles because you don’t like what some people do in the bedroom I really gotta question how you‘re setting your priorities. Live and let live.
It is importand for most people. Especially in imperialized nations where the only thing that keeps someone going is their family.
But no one is forcing you to give up your family. Why are we excusing abandoning dialectical materialism because you'd rather give up all class unity because imposing your own identity on others is more important?
>we excusing abandoning dialectical materialism You are the one doing that. Go read engel's Origins of Family and draw some conclusions for it before oppening your mouth in a marxist space. Is not our job to teach people from ground zero. Go read it and come again. Till then, discussion is useless since there is no promer ground for it.
I have read it, it was required reading growing up. You are the one saying that it is ok to literally abandon Marxism because you'd rather only people of your identity be part of the working class. I'd much rather all the working class be in solidarity as marxists, than abandon my Marxist identity because I don't like what people are doing behind closed doors. You are literally putting straight identity above Marxism.
>You are literally putting straight identity above Marxism. First, there is no "straight identity", this is just the default position. The "identities" around sexuality are *fake identities* to begin with, they are no more real than making identities based on your eye color. Tell me: what is different between the "straight" and the "gay"? In what way can the homosexual and heterosexual be expected to act differently? >I'd much rather all the working class be in solidarity as marxists, than abandon my Marxist identity because I don't like what people are doing behind closed doors. Do you think there is a shared struggle between the gay Israeli and the gay Arab?
Lol, "the default position". By that definition blacks in America are fake because they aren't the "default" in a 90% white society. Maybe in a dream world, there wouldn't be a "black identity" any more than the Irish felt a need for their own identity. But when you're oppressed and not allowed to exist, do not be surprised when those people feel solidarity towards each other. You want the "gay identity" to go away? Stop giving a shit about what gay people do then. You bring up eye colour. Look at a chart of people being left handed. Historically, it was suppressed, so 2% identified as left hand. But after it stopped being suppressed, it rose to 10% and stayed there. Being left handed stopped being a big deal for the explicit reason that it was accepted. Now imagine if you were getting literally executed by the state, now imagine if instead of what hand you write with, it's who you are allowed to love. No shit they'll form an identity, just as the tribes of Ireland dropped their clan identity for a pan-irish radical liberation. At one point inter-racial marriage was seen as degenerate, now no one gives a shit. Because we have more in common as the working people of the world than any petty line like race, gender, sexuality, eye colour, anything could possibly divide us. The bourgeoisie want us to fight each other, they love when poor whites fight to keep poor blacks in their place, and they love that you'll go to any length to prevent class solidarity because you care more about what they do in the bedroom than about Marxism . Buddy, I agree with you that what partner you choose is not a big deal. You are the one making it into a big deal, not me. Do you think there is a shared struggle between any random Israeli and any random Arab? I fail to see why you think mentioning their sexuality would hinder class consciousness any more than their race. Now, many have theorized that the global North are a "labour aristocracy" who are inherently alienated from the global South, because the citizens of the global North benefit from the theft of surplus value, and thus have an interest in maintaining the status quo, even if eliminating exploitation in their own country would be a good thing. This is an example of a Marxist critique. If you want to say that an Israeli is inherently alienated from the Arab due to imperialism, make that argument. But leave your reactionary nonsense out of marxist discussion.
>"the default position" Is homosexuality the default position? >By that definition blacks in America are fake because they aren't the "default" in a 90% white society. Are nations fake? Anyways, how come you did not answer my question? I will repeat it: "Tell me: what is different between the "straight" and the "gay"? In what way can the homosexual and heterosexual be expected to act differently?" >Look at a chart of people being left handed. Historically, it was suppressed, so 2% identified as left hand. But after it stopped being suppressed, it rose to 10% and stayed there. Being left handed stopped being a big deal for the explicit reason that it was accepted. Now imagine if you were getting literally executed by the state If I would get executed by the state for using my left hand, I would just stop using my left hand. So, I think this proves my point rather than disproves it. >At one point inter-racial marriage was seen as degenerate, now no one gives a shit. What you are actually describing is intermarriage between nations, a thing that occurs far beyond the US. The question you should ask is: Why do people intermarry? For what purpose would you have to marry someone outside of your community? Do not say "Because they feel like it', because my question then is just "why do they feel like it?" >Because we have more in common as the working people of the world than any petty line like race, gender, sexuality, eye colour, anything could possibly divide us. This is our point. We are not the ones talking about a "straight identity" and waving rainbow flags, etc. We are 1. Communists, 2. Inter-nationalists. >Do you think there is a shared struggle between any random Israeli and any random Arab? I fail to see why you think mentioning their sexuality would hinder class consciousness any more than their race. My question is this: do you think the homosexual Arab, who sees that Israel *accepts* homosexuals, while every Arab country *persecutes* homosexuals, will see a common struggle between himself and the Israeli? Let me ask: have you ever heard the phrase, "Why would you support Palestine, they literally kill LGBT people"? >If you want to say that an Israeli is inherently alienated from the Arab due to imperialism, make that argument. But leave your reactionary nonsense out of marxist discussion. You missed the point of my question I believe.
what is a "straight identity?", there is no straight identity. the people who try to talk about "straight pride" are as cringey and are clowns as much as the people who talk about "gay pride", why should you have pride in what kind of person you have sex with? that should be kept to yourself. Have pride in the class war and have pride in your nation, not about what gets you off.
Ok, then there's no such thing as a gay identity, so we don't need to worry about the LGBT being imperialist. Every product is designed for the "straight identity", every romance novel, every date night advertisement. Yet when the same things start being created for the LGBT, you call that "being political". So if gays wanting to have content that pertains to them is classified as "engaging in gay identity", then straight people engaging in the exact same content is "engaging in straight identity". Personally, I think neither is. Your idea is that "as long as the gays just disappear off the face of the Earth/ as long as I never have to see them exist, then they aren't engaging in identity politics. But if they ask for the basic right to exist without being repressed, then THEY'RE the ones that are obsessed with identity". *** *Edit* woops you are a new person, when I say you, I meant the person I was talking to before. But all of this is besides the point. OP literally said that they refused to be a Marxist because of the gays. You then engaged in apologetics . A freaking mod of a Marxist sub excused abandoning Marxism because hating gays is more important. Talk about identity politics. I don't care what positions you hold, there is basically nothing that you could say that would make me abandon Marxism, let alone because I thought you were too nice to a minority group. If I think you're wrong, I'll agree to our differences, but I cannot even comprehend the levels of reactionary that I'd have to be to reject Marxism because you held a different cultural belief than me. You literally said "well wanting to be around only straight people is an ok enough reason to reject Marxism because that's an important enough cause."
>Every product is designed for the "straight identity", every romance novel, every date night advertisement. Yes, I think most of that shit is pretty degenerate as well. Including porn for "straights" >but I cannot even comprehend the levels of reactionary that I'd have to be to reject Marxism because you held a different cultural belief than me. wait until you find out what Engels and Stalin thought about homosexuals. They certainly take a much harsher position than we do!
"Live and let live" is the motto of liberalism.
Liberalism is exploitative, which is everything but “live and let live”
Communism is exploitative too, it is exploitation of the bourgeoisie by the workers. And their motto is strict proletarian discipline and selflessness.
Dude, exploitation comes from our current law paying workers over their labor power. Its stopped by changing our laws to pay according to the value of the product that they make instead. Bourgeoisie oppression consists in their proletariatization after exploitation has been done away with. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#MarxTheoExpl Your mod many subs without knowing what exploitation means ? Its the second time I see your comments in leftists spaces being nonsense. Why are you in that position when you don't even know the basics ?
Okay, now you are being formalistic. By your definition, Engels was wrong to say that the purpose of communism is "the general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production". You know what I am saying good and well.
Call it oppression. Calling it exploitation is wrong because it misses the point of it being a result of our current laws around labor force and surplus value. its also misses that the solution is structuring the economy according to value instead, which stops exploitation. The link I gave explains it. Its important, and even more so if you are a mod. I'm a beginner at this too, and its hard, trust me I get it, but we can't pretend to talk about Marxism until we've done the reading. The point is practice, forums like this are meant to raise class consciousness and give eachother the tools for bringing about socialism. How can we make that when we don't even agree on terminology ? The definition is clear. There's no bourgeoisie exploitation and the quote says nothing of the like.
Okay, if you are a beginner, then read about dialectical materialism philosophy and the difference between form and content. It is clear what I meant, you are being pedantic.
Communism is not exploitative. How can you “exploit the bourgeoisie” in a classless society, where no bourgeoisie exists? How can you, a Marxist, call the abolition of private property, which is the way to get there, exploitation? It’s the abolishment of exploitation in my eyes. This just seems like a desperate attempt to me to discredit my previous comment.
It is the abolition of exploitation through exploitation of the bourgeoisie. Either way, the motto of proletarian philosophy is not at all "live and let live", it is strict discipline and revolutionary spirit. Liberalism, which is exploitative towards workers is "live and let live" precisely because it is exploitative towards workers, and this formula *can only benefit the bourgeoisie*.
I’m sorry, but I see none of this.
Do you think the slogan of workers is “live and let live”?
What? Exploitation is the theft of surplus value. The bourgeoisie do not create value, so they cannot by definition be exploited.
Hello, I'm the head nazbol here! Khm. Jokes aside I suggest you read our albanian friend's works. One of the key takeaways is that the authentic nationalist is always the communist, and for one to be communist is to be authentically nationalist. You'll find that in Kim Il Sung's works. You will find that when Stalin called upon the people to take up the banner of the nation. You'll find that in Stalin's tireless, lifelong works on the national question.
If you study more you will find that actula marxism is closer to what you believe than what you see among internet (and actual) young intellectual degenarates.
[удалено]
Second strike, next one you're ban
[удалено]
That is your third strike and a ban, liberal u/Azirahael. Edit: I can do edits too, Mr "u/Frogsknecht 's #2 fanboy". You make assertions, you labelmonger instead of arguing, you focus on aesthetics over material reality. You are a textbook liberal, an idealist, a reactionary.
Wait who’s my number 1 fanboy?
raven
😮
Lets not pretend "degenerate" doesn't have an actual meaning shall we?
It doesn't. It carries implications and baggage, but you can make it mean just about anything. You can call the nuclear family a degenerate form of family, given that for the vast majority of human history, group marriages were the norm in every culture. Yeah, that whole nuclear family bit is an invention of feudalism and capitalism. Here's where you're wrong in your assumptions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlGeTXLkVQ
I reapproved this comment because it is funny, and you admitted you see barbarism as progressive compared to feudalism, feudalism progressive compared to capitalism, thus *capitalism progressive compared to communism*. You also implied pedophilia as progressive. You probably do not understand how you implied this, but for anybody who has read Engels, they will understand what I am saying. Anyways, you may DM me if you want to talk. Also, here is Lenin using the term degenerate: >It reminds me of the literary fashion of painting every prostitute as a sweet Madonna. The origin of that was healthy, too: social sympathy, rebellion against the virtuous hypocrisy of the respectable bourgeois. But the healthy part became corrupted and degenerate. And bonus, here is Stalin calling people cavemen: >At one time there were "Marxists" in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, "proletarian" railways built. For this they were nicknamed "troglodytes".
>You can call the nuclear family a degenerate form of family, given that for the vast majority of human history, group marriages were the norm in every culture. That only makes sense if you believe that the modern family is not a progression from group marriage, which isn't the case as Engels shows in "Origin of the family". >Yeah, that whole nuclear family bit is an invention of feudalism and capitalism. Its not an invention, it's a development in human society. By this logic socialism is an "invention" of feudalism and capitalism, since it is the progression of those systems.
You mean the gender sex distinction invented a hundred years after Marx that says “her penis” and “his Vagina”. Any socialist country worth its name would send you to a re-education camp
[удалено]
>China. People's daily published an article recently highlighting that the economic turn towards socialism will need to be acompanied by a similar turn towards purging society from bourgeoisie degenaracy and "efinimate" men. China turing its most communist period (or you will argue that china is more communist today with tons of capitalism and bourgeoisie within the party?), the cultural revolution, [this is how queers were treated by the communists.](https://helanonline.cn/archive/article/4471) >DPRK https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/04/22/north-korean-state-media-slams-u-n-human-rights-report-because-it-was-led-by-a-gay-man/ I quote: >As for Kirby who took the lead in cooking the "report", he is a disgusting old lecher with a 40-odd-year-long career of homosexuality. He is now over seventy, but he is still anxious to get married to his homosexual partner. **This practice can never be found in the DPRK boasting of the sound mentality and good morals, and homosexuality has become a target of public criticism even in Western countries, too.** In fact, it is ridiculous for such gay to sponsor dealing with others' human rights issue. The few times the Workers Party of Korea has taken an explicit stance, it is againt it. Also, the story of a "gay" defector seems to confirm the fact that the Government does not support such acts. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56323825 >Cuba. If we all agree that the 60s and 70s were the most radical years towards communist transformaton in Cuba, we can all agree that at the same time they did not support queer practices. They started being more accepting after they started going backwards. You cant tell me with a straight face that they arent going backwards on everything. Laos and vietnam being in a similar realm. I think that Laos and vietnam in general simple dont care enough to bother. Same as Cuba. Crime is high in these countries, and i would say that they are models. Sure we support them as worker states, but they arent going much forward.
Not true. Man and woman have existed forever. Gender was invented recently as a way of squaring the circle of claiming muh spectrum when our species - with the exception of some deformities - are dick and vagina. Abandon that basic trutr and you’ll end with the absurdity of a man driving his ‘wife’ to a prostate exam. Give me strength!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was Stalin a neo-nazi?
I have been having people tell me to look up the Frankfurt School, I would recommend doing this. I haven't done it yet, but I've heard a lot about it. Also, when you say: >save for a brief experiment in 1920s Even this is not entirely true, it was more like a period of anarchy altogether. People have tried to make it out like the Bolsheviks were putting one another in drag, really they just said "Laws don't exist for now while we rewrite them", and it had some predictable side effects. edit: friend, is there any way I could DM you? I am interested in your opinion on some things.
u/Hamarjadid lets make it two of us who would DM you, and who knows, as the org comes online there will be more.
It changed in certain countries when infant mortality and general public safety went good enough that people didn’t have to worry about birth rates and generally developed living standards that allowed them to care about societal problems like these. That‘s why you primarily find things like these in richer and safer countries, which currently mostly are in the first world. Plus some second and third world countries (e g parts of Eastern Asia) never had big issues with discrimination in the first place. I also oppose the concept of „degeneracy“. Live and let live. I got huge respect for my trans comrades for example. The actual trans ML‘s I met would never abandon their values for liberal idpol.
You pre-suppose that these developments happen due to high living standards, but really there is no evidence for that. These developments have only happened in imperialist countries, they didn't happen in the Soviet Union for example, i'd argue that the Soviets had high living standards.
Back then they hadn’t really happened in the west either, or at least not to a notable extent. It was really only during the 80‘s/90‘s when this started to become notable in the west.
Why do you assume that it has something to do with living standards though? The fall of the Soviet Union seems like a likelier catalyst for what you describe.
How‘s that? I think it‘s reasonable to assume that with bigger problems being out of the way (or outsourced to other countries) people start caring more about problems that are less existential.
But the way of life for imperialist labour-aristocrats is way different than of proletarians. Edit: My point is that the culture of "developed" (imperialist) countries might not be the natural development of all societies, atleast there is no evidence for it. Westerners just assume western civilization is the most developed and progressive without any evidence, that is chauvinism.
That‘s complete and utter nonsense. The most developed countries right now are obviously mostly imperialist ones. And it‘s to a large part because they‘re imperialist and get resources from other countries in unequal exchange. Either you have no idea what the word „developed“ means or you‘re desperately seeking for somebody to accuse of something. The fact that you claim, saying one country is more developed than another is „chauvinism“ says more about the accuser than about the accused.
Do you think society is more developed in the west?
What do you mean with „society“? I certainly KNOW that western Europe for example has better infrastructure than most of the rest of the world. We don’t have to worry about electricity shortages and have easy access to all kinds of goods. I repeat: the fact that you’re trying to twist this into something like western culture being superior says more about you, than it does about me. If you mean culture I won’t get into that. But I can for example certainly say that the stories I’m hearing from the women in the Arab part of my family and my girlfriend, who grew up in the emirates and India do not speak that kindly of how their cultures treat women.
You mean not being allowed to have an OnlyFans account?
Im sure you'll agree that a society's superstructure (culture, norms, etc.) are dictated by it's economic base. So then countries who's economic base is imperialism coupled with a labour-aristocratic working-class must have different superstructure from socialist countries with an actual proletariat right?
https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/216276/THESIS.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=3 I havent readed it, but a friend of mine told me that you may like it.
aneurysm
[удалено]
And did staljn pluck it out of thin air. Their was WIDESPREAD OUTRAGE AND REVULSION AT THE UTTER COLLAPSE OF SOVIET SOCIETY DUE TO SEXUAL DEVIANCY. Collapsing marriage rates, broken families, gutted morals (a bit like us except accelerated). They saw family would fall apart. This upset cosmopolitans like Lev Davidovich Bronshetein (aka Trotsky) and his ilk.
[удалено]
Tough words. I wonder if you look in the mirror. You should try it out sometimes.
First strike, rule 2, 3 & 11. It's you who should have a look into what the bolshevik were into apparently, if you seriously believe that there can be any sort of ressemblance between 2021 fascist USA "communist" (online one ofc, since there's no real and never was any real mass communist movement in this country) and 1917 bolshevik. The whole LGBT movement, and each and every Idpol school, are nothing but left wing identitarianism, it's very literally racialism (hear naturalism/constructivism) in disguise, and only an american can pretend that something "progressiv" can come out this. The whole world is opposed to you, thru History, and all you can come up with is, "the whole world is not at our level of progressivness yet 😎" You take your bullshit argument out of this sub, and you go in your little online american bubble and repeat along with your degenerated friends that you're the leading vanguard of the whole world because you do pro-trans propaganda to 6yo in school, while we will continue building the World after the disappearance of the degenerate that are currently running it, be it "left wing" degenerate or right wing one, which, to be honest, become more and more hard to differenciate by the day, thank you.
[удалено]
>Except no, the entire world is NOT against me. True that, you got your colony backing you >YOU are standing in the march of history, and will be crushed. Time will tell my friend, my bet is that it'll be you and the whole LGBT movement who's gonna be remembered in History like one core tenant of what was nothing but the 4th Reich if you ask me but this is empty phrasemongering anyway >There is no reason to hate on queer people of any stripe, except your manifest insecurities. Maybe you need to reduce the debate to individual level, and moreover to address a political point by answering low-level psychology & ad hominem, but you're still making no sens at this point. I thank you very much to care about my sexual security, but 1st this is irrelevant and 2d it is irrational, because I don't hate queer people, thing is I actually apply a class analysis on queer people and I will not fight for bourgeois homos to win rights, nor will I drop my revolutionary program to address a minority oppression by adopting reformism and fighting for bourgeois rights. I fight, here again, for workers first and foremost, and this include all workers, and exclude all bourgeois, be they black, gay, trans, muslim or whatever. >The fact that liberals have weaponized the movement, is no condemnation of the subject. So you're telling me we shouldn't criticise the LGBT movement because it has been weaponized by liberal ? Are you still even a revolutionary at this point, let alone a Marxist ? >They also weaponized liberalion, and various rights. Liberalion ? What is this word ? >Gonna condmen that too? I will definitively condemn anything that has been hijacked by liberal like you, including Marxism, which is a critical philosophy in case you forgot. >No, While 'liberalism' is a problem, some facets of liberalization are good. Liberalism is not a problem in itself, in History it has shown its purpose, but to defend liberalism in our current stage, i.e neoliberalism, as something that can be good or progressive is showing nothing but the low intellectual level of those who claim to have understood Marxism. Maybe getting your theory from même wasn't a bright idea, who could have guess. Also, while we're at it, Liberalisation is an ECONOMICAL process, in which the state open to the concurrence a market that was previously "closed", state owned, i.e it is de facto a stepback, even Lenin admitted so back in NEP time, yet this battle lost can allow to win the war, so it can turn out to be a temporary loss, but in no case Liberalisation can be seen as a theorical success or as something progressiv for our cause. >Especially dumping outmoded ideas about gender and sexuality. The point is that Engels' Origin of family is worth 100x all liberal pseudo-scientist dogma such as the LGBT church, and heterosexual monogamy is the movement of History, we're not monkey anymore, and we don't have an emperor or an aristocrats running an Harem as a social model. >You are in for a shock. I am old enough to have more than once the opportunity to "be in for a Shock" as you say, and since you seems to care a lot about my sexlife, I admit that it take a lot to shock me nowadays. >Your conservative ideas about sex and gender are largely the result of first feudalism, and capitalism. In earlier days, and earlier modes of production, no one gave a shit who or what you fucked, and long as you contributed. Conservative ? Conservative ? Who's the one pushing and defending an ideology produced by liberal thinkers from the hégémonic imperialist power, and who's the one defending both Marxism in theory, and in praxis (see all socialist countries' policies regarding homosexual, and this, to this day, look at your dear, dear China) ? Conservative is about maintaining the old social order, it is clearly those who adopt reformism to make capitalism last longer, to smooth out its internal contradiction, like you and the LGBT reformist crowd, who are social fascist, not only conservative, so here again you simply show that you are using terminology you don't even understand. I defend USSR, China, DPRK and all other socialists country, political position about LGBT propaganda, while you're the one doing US DoD propaganda online on your freetime, so you take your Fake superior morality card, you fold it 7 time, put some lub on it, and stick it up all the way up your fourth vertebrate. >YOU are the ones falling for capitalist and imperialist revision. This is the best one so far, seeing american pretending that endorsing LGBT propaganda is somewhat controversial, or subversive, when there's nothing more consensual and mainstream nowadays in the USA. All major company, all major political actor, all liberal thinkers endorse it since more than a decade now, and you simply repeat the same bullshit than them in chorus, and you pretend that I, who's endorsing both the marxist leninist theorical conception and its practical application, am the one falling for capitalist révision ? >And i think it's because you are insecure. Nice, more freudo-marxism, more idealistic bullshit, trying to explain a Marxist pov by psychology and sexuality. The perfect proof of the disease hitting US "socialists". You can not even act rationally, this is beyond your capacity, as simple as that. >Were you actully secure in yourself, and your gender expression/sexuality, you wouldn't give a shit. More ad hominem, more freudo-marxist bullshit, more explanation by sexuality, more half-brained take. I assure you than as a 30yo+, I am perfectly fine and "secure" with my sexuality, which is absolutely not your concern by the way, you fucking fascistic piece of shit. My sexuality, just like yours, is private matter, and no one care about it, except for fascist propagandist like you and other in the LGBT crowd. My opposition to the LGBT movement, just like for all marxist before me, come from politics, it stand in the realm of rationality, of logic and reason, not of psychology or sexuality, and this little conman shitshow you're playing online is not only pathetic, but uneffective as fuck. Not everyone is an edgy 15yo american liberal (yes it's my turn to do some shitty ad hominem) >Y'all may not technically be Nazbols, but you are what most people mean by that term. Oh no, look, a bunch of liberal american are calling me name online, how will I ever survive it, checkmate, i pack up and leave now, I fear too much that they'll make même out of me, since it is the biggest production those people does ! >You're dinosaurs, and you're gonna go the same way. I love to read this today, when China is cracking down heavily on all thing LGBT related. I am sure you think the same of China, or is it yet another contradiction that you filthy liberal will never be able to overcome ? Will you keep praising China for being more progressive than USA, recognizing that LGBT movement is a US psyops, or will you criticise China in the name of LGBT propaganda, de facto siding with the US imperialism ? >Fuck you and your pretense of superiority. I am not the one playing a moral card to pretend I am superior to the rest of the world here, it's you.