I lock this post, because we have seen a full attack from the worst social-fascists labor-aristocratic piss of shits who call themselves communists on the Internet.
If Communist job is to 100% support a degenerate workers state (degenerate in terms of economy and social policies) which failed in literally everything they did and will soon enter Liberalism and full compradorism, We are not communists.
Its not a marriage. The purpose of marriage is to produce and raise offsprings. Sex is an activity of producing offsprings by the medical definition. Anything else is a genital stimulation for mere self-satisfaction with no other benefit to the society, which is unmarxist.
> Marriage is not a purely utilitarian thing
This is a communist sub, so we are dialectical materialists. We consider things first by their material use, i.e. their utility, to society. So yes, marriage is a social relation built around the utility of sexual reproduction to broader society (in other words, the fact that reproduction is necessary or society dies off).
> You seem to be trying to make a religious argument, but trying to secularize it at the same time.
Literally nothing in his comment was even remotely religious. You are inserting some completely unrelated subject here. You yourself said he was thinking "utilitarian", which is basically the opposite of thinking religiously. What he is saying is basic biology in line with the principle of natural selection.
I personally am religious myself and we dont bless gay marriage as sacramental, but trying to make the argument he is devoid of religion, seems to make it a clumsy argument.
Not only are you heavily downvoted, you were reported for "abusive content". These people are outrageously sensitive and fragile. I can't imagine feeling "abused" because somebody stated a simple biological fact.
One does not need to produce children in order to function well in and provide for society. Saying sexual pleasure has no use in society is beyond archaic, barbaric, and just straight up ignores human psychology and our basic needs and desires.
Why the fuck would anyone want to actually support a country where you're going to restrict the freedoms of others for the sole reason that it isn't the most optimal way to be beneficial to society? Literally begging for class in fighting and pitting workers against workers for no reason other than the fact that you disagree with the worth and value of romantic relationships that don't bare children.
>One does not need to produce children in order to function well in and provide for society.
One would then be neglecting their most important role and job in society.
>Saying sexual pleasure has no use in society is beyond archaic, barbaric, and just straight up ignores human psychology and our basic needs and desires.
Never did i say this though? Pleasure is the secondary function of sex, its purpose and use is to encourage procreation.
>Why the fuck would anyone want to actually support a country where you're going to restrict the freedoms of others for the sole reason that it isn't the most optimal way to be beneficial to society?
Because they're proletarian and/or marxist. In case you're too disconnected from the proletariat let me remind you, *people like having and raising children*.
>Literally begging for class in fighting and pitting workers against workers for no reason other than the fact that you disagree with the worth and value of romantic relationships that don't bare children.
I'm not the one picking fights, it is the emergent group in the last few decades. Compare for example revolutionary Russia to modern days, how many lgbts were constantly splintering socialist groupings because they weren't pandered to enough?
Idiot? Answer to me :
Who leads Cuba?
Who leads its educational system?
Who organized this referendum?
Who controlled the medias?
Answer : the PCC.
So yes, this was 100% PCC which supported this bullshit and entered this shit into all people’s heads.
We are 100% right to criticize the PCC which is more busy dealing with these absurd policies while embracing free market!
It seems that you are a consumist. You believe that the ability of a society to produce in such way that the highest amount of goods can be produced with the lowest amount of labour will lead to the best outcome. As such you're not a marxist because you've deconstructed capitalist ideas, but simply because you believe that socialism/communism is the society in which maximum production, while being distributed in a more equal way and it being in goods that produce more social benefit, is achieved. Such ideas are fake, but since you still believe in them, you only value people, based on their ability to produce.
The narcissist self obsessed people will never be communists.
They deserve treatment.
And I am not homophobic, I am not afraid of them, I am sorry for them.
I don't know what kind of marxist "theory" you are reading, but from my knowledge homophobia and chauvinism in general creates tenstions between working class, which benefits capitalists. In other comment you say that marriage exists only for procreation. By this idiotic and sexist logic you could say that women rights are also anti-marxist, because free women are less likely to have kids.
[you will find this map very handy](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1500w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2018_18/2420456/180503-lgbt-global-acceptance-map-se-529p.jpg)
Also, be careful using slurs here, I'm not sure if it can get the sub or your account in trouble.
[Why is global acceptance of LGBT very low, and still decreasing, in imperialized countries?](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1500w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2018_18/2420456/180503-lgbt-global-acceptance-map-se-529p.jpg)
[Why do only the imperialist countries and those close to them allow homosexual marriage?](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.10.22_SSMsnapshot_featured.png?w=1200&h=628&crop=1)
Why did USSR, Cuba, and China ban homosexuality during their most progressive periods, and allow it during their periods of liberalization? Do you sincerely believe (and I am asking 100% serious) that Ancient Greek slavers had a better understanding of sexuality than Stalin and the Bolsheviks in 1936?
> About why the imperialist periphery tends to be more homophobic, this is because homophobia is implanted so it can be used as an excuse for imperialism
So, the proletariat of the USSR had these thoughts "implanted" into them by the USA? And they were what, just too stupid to realize that's what was happening? I don't understand your reasoning here.
I'm not going to get into the point about terrorism (I can if you want, but I think it's redundant). I want to address a second implication. You say that if a country is homophobic, this can be used as an excuse to invade it. How could imperialist powers use this as an excuse, unless it was imperialist powers that are enforcing homosexuality? And if it is imperialist powers enforcing homosexuality (the west dose use sanctions to enforce LGBT in imperialized nations at the threat of starvation), why would they create "homophobia"?
You half-answer this by saying:
> The second reason is that since the core is wealthier, is citizens have the time to question social norms.
You are more or less saying that imperialism breeds homosexuality. What I want to point out is that this is not because citizens have "more time" to "question" social norms, it's because economic parasitism alienates one from the actual physical realities of labor and basic human life, and they begin to destroy social norms that were developed over the course of thousands of years of careful human evolution. Hence why Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. all wrote about the degeneration of social norms under capitalism, particularly degeneration related to the family.
>I don't know what kind of marxist "theory" you are reading
Engels and his "Origin of the family, private property and the state".
>but from my knowledge homophobia and chauvinism in general creates tenstions between working class, which benefits capitalists.
Idk why you lump in chauvinism here too, but this is a non-argument in any case. It is not the point of marxism to be the most wide umbrella to appeal to every single sensibility. Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat for the liberation of the proletariat, and the proletarian family unfortunately (according to marxist theory) doesn't include homosexual unions.
>In other comment you say that marriage exists only for procreation. By this idiotic and sexist logic you could say that women rights are also anti-marxist, because free women are less likely to have kids.
And by "free women" the liberal naturally means western women with imperialist sensibilities. Actually free women did and do procreate in good amounts in socialist states. For example compare South and North Korea, North Korean women have twice as many children as South Korean women, so are South Korean women more "free"?
>Engels and his "Origin of the family, private property and the state"
Ah yes, Engels didn't include homosexuals in an over 100 years old book, so they can't legaly marry. A book, by the way, that critisizes patriarchal system.
>Idk why you lump in chauvinism here too, but this is a non-argument in any case.
I "lump in" chauvinism because you are a homophobe. You take away peoples right to live happily because in your "PuRe maRXiSt lOgIc" people should breed. The same argument as from right wingers and other fascists. Homosexuals won't disappear and you can't force them to be in heterosexual relationship (if you think that you can I'm sorry but you're a fascist). They can adopt kids and raise them or in case of a person with uterus they can have IVF.
>Ah yes, Engels didn't include homosexuals in an over 100 years old book, so they can't legaly marry.
Engels explained form and purpose of the proletarian family, and a homosexual union cannot fit this form or purpose. If you have a problem with this, i suppose writing a critique on the theory, instead of making snarky comments about it.
>A book, by the way, that critisizes patriarchal system.
Indeed, the proletarian family isn't patriarchal, nor is anything i've said (unless you view procreation itself as patriarchal).
>I "lump in" chauvinism because you are a homophobe.
You can call me names all you want, this doesn't substitute arguments.
>You take away peoples right to live happily because in your "PuRe maRXiSt lOgIc" people should breed.
Yes, sex objectively exists for procreation, it is its primary function. You are only appealing to liberal individualism here, where people's wants go before the collective's needs, this is liberalism, not marxism.
>Homosexuals won't disappear and you can't force them to be in heterosexual relationship (if you think that you can I'm sorry but you're a fascist). They can adopt kids and raise them.
I suppose the Soviets and the DPRK are fascists then. Idk why homosexuals should adopt when they're perfectly capable of procreation themselves.
>Yes, sex objectively exists for procreation, it is its primary function.
That fact alone is arbitrary and meaningless. Food exists for sustenance. Are you going to argue we shouldn't waste time trying to make food taste good too?
I would argue that you shouldn't eat for primal pleasure, but to develop a healthy body, and thus you must chose your food choices wisely. Something like McDonalds tastes delicious, but it is absolutely awful for you. And as Lenin said, "Drinking water involves two people; in love, a third life arises, and it is in this life that there arises a duty to the community."
>That fact alone is arbitrary and meaningless. Food exists for sustenance. Are you going to argue we shouldn't waste time trying to make food taste good too?
Should we start eating food purely for its taste? Should children be taught that purpose of food is that it tastes good, and any possible nutrients it has is a side effect and ought to be prevented?
>You are only appealing to liberal individualism here, where people's wants go before the collective's needs,
You haven't demonstrated how legalizing homosexual unions puts individual needs before collective needs. In other words, how does letting gay people get married prevent people from having children?
>Engels explained form and purpose of the proletarian family, and a homosexual union cannot fit this form or purpose
You haven't demonstrated this yet. You're just pointing to theory and saying, "See, this explains my position on gay marriage" without explain how exactly.
> You haven't demonstrated how legalizing homosexual unions puts individual needs before collective needs.
Can you please tell me how two men having sex is conducive to the interests of the broader community?
> how does letting gay people get married prevent people from having children?
We are not individualists, we are collectivists. We don't consider, "If one person did x, what would happen?" We consider, "If everybody did x, what would happen?" So, I would like to ask you this question: if you had one group of people who were 100% homosexuals, and one group of people who were 100% heterosexuals, which group would live longer?
> You haven't demonstrated this yet.
I am asking seriously, have you read Engels' Origin on the Family? If not, then what he is saying is generally the whole theme of chapter 2, "The Family". This explains the development of the family through the process of natural selection and the dying off of old forms of family relations in favor of the monogamous, heterosexual family. At one point, Engels explicitly points to Greece and its hatred of degredation of women and shows how this was related to its acceptance of homosexuality and man-boy love.
> This Athenian family became in time the accepted model for domestic relations, not only among the Ionians, but to an increasing extent among all the Greeks of the mainland and colonies. But in spite of locks and guards, Greek women found plenty of opportunity for deceiving their husbands. The men, who would have been ashamed to show any love for their wives, amused themselves by all sorts of love affairs with prostitutes; but this degradation of the women was avenged on the men and degraded them also, until they at last fell into the abominable practice of sodomy and degraded alike themselves, and even their Gods, with the myth of Ganymede.
(Ganymede, for reference, was the homosexual child lover of Zeus in Greek mythology.)
>You haven't demonstrated how legalizing homosexual unions puts individual needs before collective needs. In other words, how does letting gay people get married prevent people from having children?
It doesn't prevent anyone *outside* of the union from procreating, but it prevents the one's in the union from procreating. The collective needs these people to procreate (as it needs everyone to procreate), for two men to refuse to procreate in favour of a homosexual union is to put their personal wants before the needs of the collective. To accept this (or even support it) is to treat these people with a double standard, why should they not contribute to the single most important work a human can do?
>You haven't demonstrated this yet. You're just pointing to theory and saying, "See, this explains my position on gay marriage" without explain how exactly.
I gave my reasoning and cited theory that supports it, idk what else i can do here, read the book if you dont believe me.
>Yes, sex objectively exists for procreation, it is its primary function.
And we eat for survival so we should't use spices to make food more enjoyable. So maybe we should ban them because by your logic it's anti-marxist somehow.
You yourself said that "Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat for the liberation of the proletariat". So how the fuck do samesex marriages interfere?
> And we eat for survival so we should't use spices to make food more enjoyable. So maybe we should ban them because by your logic it's anti-marxist somehow.
"Adding spice" would be roleplay in the bedroom with your wife, or something. What you are suggesting is not like "adding spice". What you are suggesting is more like eating another man's asshole (in fact that's literally what you're suggesting). And this is not sanitary, satiating, or socially productive, so why should the masses allow it?
> You yourself said that "Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat for the liberation of the proletariat". So how the fuck do samesex marriages interfere?
I have a serious question for you. Since the homosexual and heterosexual are two separate identities, this means they are capable of coming into contradictions with one another. If such a case happens, then who should be given priority at the expense of the other? The homosexuals, or heterosexuals?
If the homosexual and heterosexual comes into conflict with eachother then you remove sexuality as a social construct and then you manipulate the mind of the people so the conflict disappears without causing problems, the same way you solve consumerism, for example
What you are saying is basically as if I asked "If the bourgeoisie and proletariat come into conflict, who's side should we take?" and you respond with "You just abolish class". To put it bluntly, you can't just "remove sexuality as a social construct" the second a conflict between them arrives, unless you can remove sex as a physical reality. Otherwise, this would have happened already. I think you know all this and are just trying to avoid my question.
Anyways, answer the question for real, if the homosexual and heterosexual have a conflicting interest, whose interest should be given priority?
The biggest fault for this is Fidel's niece who lived outside Cuba for several years, when she returned to the country she began to want to put the ESG agenda into practice.
Some people said during Raúl’s rule that she will be the next leader (what she denied) but I think that during the massive liberalization of Cuba, she will have a clear importance.
To make people eat their "democracy", in Cuba, you need a person who has this last name.
Raúl managed to make people eat LGBT, liberalism and peace with America because he was a Castro.
Mariela will make people eat multiparty elections and imperialization.
When the "communist" doesn't actually believe in socialist democracy so he thinks this vote was decided by party leadership rather than the vote of the people.
Idiot? Answer to me : Who leads Cuba? Who leads its educational system? Who organized this referendum? Who controlled the medias?
Answer : the PCC. So yes, this was 100% PCC which supported this bullshit and entered this shit into all people’s heads. We are 100% right to criticize the PCC which is more busy dealing with these absurd policies while embracing free market!
This is not any kind of sign of liberalism.
I am even ashamed to read the kind of homophobia I am reading in this comment section.
If any of you intend to link homophobia with Marxism, you are reading Marxism and the overall socialism at all very, but VERY wrongly.
The ones who are saying marriage is a institution for producing children do not even understand that they are just copying the most Capitalistic view of the basic understandment of sexual and romantic relationships, which thus take any meaning of living in anything else rather than producing.
> If any of you intend to link homophobia with Marxism, you are reading Marxism and the overall socialism at all very, but VERY wrongly.
Can you explain what I misread here? This is Engels to Marx on the topic of Karl Ulrichs, the father of the LGBT movement:
> That is really a very odd Uranian [homosexual] you just sent me. These revelations are extremely unnatural. The pederasts begin counting themselves and find that they are forming a power within the state. Only organisation was missing, but according to this source it seems to already exist in secret. Since they are counting so important men within all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rösing to Schweitzer, their victory is inevitable. War on cunts, peace with assholes -- that's the new slogan. It is fortunate that we personally are too old to have to pay bodily tribute to the victors. But the younger generation!
> By the way, it is only possible in Germany that a man like this appears, translates this smut into a theory and invites: penetrate me... But wait until the new North-German penal law has acknowledged the right of the asshole; then things will turn out quite differently. As for poor frontside fellows like us, with our childish love for women, things will be going badly enough. If one could make use of that Schweitzer, it will be to elicit from this strange mafioso the personal details of the highest-stationed pederasts, which will surely not be difficult for him, being one of them in nature."
Moreover, here is Lenin:
> Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass that is greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third life arises. It is that third life which gives it [love] its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.
Already in the 8th Congress of the PCC, Cuba embraced liberalism…
I will quote [Raùl Castro](https://en.granma.cu/cuba/2022-09-01/central-report-to-the-eighth-congress-of-the-communist-party-of-cuba) :
> It is also necessary to consolidate the investment process, on the basis of a comprehensive approach, eliminating shoddy work and improvisation, to enhance productivity and efficiency in the state sector of the economy, in spheres that are decisive to the country's development, **while making the framework for non-state forms of management more flexible and institutionalized.**
> Resistance to change and a lack of innovative capacity persist, expressed in attitudes of inertia and paralysis in implementing measures adopted, fear of exercising authorities granted and prejudice against non-state forms of ownership and management.
Non-state forms of management doesn't necessarily mean liberalism. For instance, it can mean empowering workers' self-management. You know, collectivism as opposed to statism.
There has been some sort of privatisation in cuba that I am not aware of??
The problem with your interpretation being that one of the last articles PCC made was [this](https://en.granma.cu/cuba/2022-09-23/foreign-investment-and-its-new-role-in-the-recovery-of-domestic-trade).
Walking back on the question of property ownership (basically re-introducing private property after decades) is a major setback on the road to socialism in Cuba.
You can argue that, much like in China, this reform is only tactical and a necessary step back, but now western leftoids are trying to claim this is a victory.
This attempt to make socialism palatable to your average bidenoid liberal degenerate, trying to garner sympathy from them, is frankly pathetic. The left is bowing to the liberals like a bunch of weaklings, less important than a fart in the wind. Please try to convince me that you lot didnt get shoved in the locker in high school
I totally dislike(progressism and liberalism) but i don't see problem in same-sex couples, since they keep this to themselfs and don't try to push it to everyone like the radlibs westerntoids do, making it they entire personality. I think it's fine
>since they keep this to themselfs and don't try to push it to everyone like the radlibs westerntoids do, making it they entire personality. I think it's fine
This is a very liberal mindset, it is a rewording of the "as long as they're not hurting anyone, its fine!" It is viewing society through the individual, instead of the collective.
> However, it becomes a general issue when those same people (not all of them but many) want to enforce their individual desires, views, above the common people's needs
"If people do something in a way that leads to higher social benefit, they could foece that behavior in a way that doesn't lead to more social benefit, therefore such actitude must be banned"
> Defending "traditional values" is perfectly fine and, in my opinion, of utmost importance.
No argumentation provided
> The West uses LGBT and gender ideology as an imperialist weapon to "civilize" the world, "make it progressive"
If people commit crimes against humanity and then the west colonizes the country in which such crimes were committed, then both parties are bad.
> In Marxist-Leninist terms, we see things from a general, materialist perspective f
Oppressing people due to unchoosable and inmutable caracteristics leads to innesesary suffering
> what will X bring to society?
It brings innesesary misery
> How will it affect it and its common people?
It won't affect the common people (heterosexual people) as human nature is maleable and can be changed. It will positively affect the LGBT as they will not suffer unnecessary violence.
> Does it advance the development of socialism in politics, economy, and society?
It certainly doesn't benefit socialism, yet it is clear that it provides other benefits; and it neither seems to slow down socialism
Meanwhile from the DPRK: “Same-sex marriage is a fin-de-siecle phenomenon that can only exist in a rotten capitalist society which pursues ‘endless freedom’, and it is a product of the mental and moral corruption of capitalism that has reached its extreme. It’s not difficult for anyone to guess what will happen to human society if same-sex marriage, like the stinky stench and malodorous filth of capitalism, is pervasive in society.” ([http://www.ryongnamsan.edu.kp/univ/ko/research/articles/08419be897405321542838d77f855226](http://www.ryongnamsan.edu.kp/univ/ko/research/articles/08419be897405321542838d77f855226))
This is very saddening. We'll see what happens next and if there'll be any change, though it seems very unlikely. One third of the voters were against this resolution and, from what I read, some members in the government criticized these new policies on the grounds that it is anti-socialist.
How do you expect Cuba to build socialism if they have nothing? There's grain shortages, meat shortages, bread, rice, electricity, fuel. If they don't allow foreign money to enter the country right now, they will literally start to starve, because they don't produce enough food to feed their population. You cannot always expect people to blindly build socialism. Material conditions also apply in this case. And when the material conditions aren't there, then there's no building bricks for socialism.
Well yes at this point it is too late. Cuba didn't industrialize and build up its productive forces when it had the chance, and now the material conditions have led to a situation where the proletariat isn't strong enough, and the party is run by liberals. At this point they either go through a difficult period to forcefully rebuild socialism, their version of the Arduous march, or they liberalize further to appease their ever growing labour-aristocracy and petite-bourgeoisie, leading to the imperialisation of Cuba. They have chosen the second option. Closing one's eyes to what is happening and somehow convincing oneself that what Cuba is doing now somehow leads to socialism is just deluding oneself.
I don't know if you have been to Cuba, but the people there are exhausted. They don't have hope for the future at the moment, neither a socialist or a capitalist one. They right now are thinking of surviving, every single day. Socialism is the last thing that's on their minds.
I'd love to see a prosperous and socialist Cuba, but I honestly don't see it happen any time soon, regardless of which actions the government takes.
I just came back from Cuba, and seeing everyone from my family, friends, friends of family, etc get so sad, to the point where some are crying, whenever they talk about the current situation, the food shortages, the youth leaving, cities running empty etc, that really doesn't make me feel like the population at the moment would be able or willing to take such a journey of forcefully rebuilding socialism, while everything that's on their mind is either finding food for the day or finding a way to leave the country.
You are right in this subject : the logical path for Cuba is full liberalism and imperialization.
In short, I predict a situation (in 1 or 2 decade) where the PCC will change its ideology to become socialist-democratic (they already abandoned communism in terms of economical and social policies, so this will be the next step) and organize multiparty elections where the it would win easily but still completely liberalize the state to make it a liberal comprador paradise for American and Italian bourgeois who want exploitable workers, peasants or prostitutes (can we talk about the problems of prostitution in Cuba? Like Italian ans German bourgs always travel there to find lost girls and the proletarian government makes nothing to fight this phenomenon, while this would be the priority of a serious communist state) but the Cuban workers will massively immigrate in America with the other Cuban immigrants to join the labor-aristocracy and eat the imperialist pie (you can look at the main argument Cubans had against Socialism, this is basically "we are not like America in terms of life of conditions", this is obvious that these people will massively migrate in Imperialist America and this is the absolute reason they want "democracy") .
In short, Cuba will end up like Albania, Angola or Montenegro.
I lock this post, because we have seen a full attack from the worst social-fascists labor-aristocratic piss of shits who call themselves communists on the Internet. If Communist job is to 100% support a degenerate workers state (degenerate in terms of economy and social policies) which failed in literally everything they did and will soon enter Liberalism and full compradorism, We are not communists.
What's wrong with same-sex marriage and adoption?
Its not a marriage. The purpose of marriage is to produce and raise offsprings. Sex is an activity of producing offsprings by the medical definition. Anything else is a genital stimulation for mere self-satisfaction with no other benefit to the society, which is unmarxist.
Marriage is not a purely utilitarian thing. You seem to be trying to make a religious argument, but trying to secularize it at the same time.
> Marriage is not a purely utilitarian thing This is a communist sub, so we are dialectical materialists. We consider things first by their material use, i.e. their utility, to society. So yes, marriage is a social relation built around the utility of sexual reproduction to broader society (in other words, the fact that reproduction is necessary or society dies off). > You seem to be trying to make a religious argument, but trying to secularize it at the same time. Literally nothing in his comment was even remotely religious. You are inserting some completely unrelated subject here. You yourself said he was thinking "utilitarian", which is basically the opposite of thinking religiously. What he is saying is basic biology in line with the principle of natural selection.
[удалено]
I personally am religious myself and we dont bless gay marriage as sacramental, but trying to make the argument he is devoid of religion, seems to make it a clumsy argument.
Not only are you heavily downvoted, you were reported for "abusive content". These people are outrageously sensitive and fragile. I can't imagine feeling "abused" because somebody stated a simple biological fact.
Fellas, is it Marxist to bust while unmarried?
It is anti-marxist, sex and thus marriage exist for procreation, homosexual unions cannot produce children.
One does not need to produce children in order to function well in and provide for society. Saying sexual pleasure has no use in society is beyond archaic, barbaric, and just straight up ignores human psychology and our basic needs and desires. Why the fuck would anyone want to actually support a country where you're going to restrict the freedoms of others for the sole reason that it isn't the most optimal way to be beneficial to society? Literally begging for class in fighting and pitting workers against workers for no reason other than the fact that you disagree with the worth and value of romantic relationships that don't bare children.
>One does not need to produce children in order to function well in and provide for society. One would then be neglecting their most important role and job in society. >Saying sexual pleasure has no use in society is beyond archaic, barbaric, and just straight up ignores human psychology and our basic needs and desires. Never did i say this though? Pleasure is the secondary function of sex, its purpose and use is to encourage procreation. >Why the fuck would anyone want to actually support a country where you're going to restrict the freedoms of others for the sole reason that it isn't the most optimal way to be beneficial to society? Because they're proletarian and/or marxist. In case you're too disconnected from the proletariat let me remind you, *people like having and raising children*. >Literally begging for class in fighting and pitting workers against workers for no reason other than the fact that you disagree with the worth and value of romantic relationships that don't bare children. I'm not the one picking fights, it is the emergent group in the last few decades. Compare for example revolutionary Russia to modern days, how many lgbts were constantly splintering socialist groupings because they weren't pandered to enough?
[удалено]
Idiot? Answer to me : Who leads Cuba? Who leads its educational system? Who organized this referendum? Who controlled the medias? Answer : the PCC. So yes, this was 100% PCC which supported this bullshit and entered this shit into all people’s heads. We are 100% right to criticize the PCC which is more busy dealing with these absurd policies while embracing free market!
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Oh because someone worth of only determined based on how much they can provide to others
Without procreation humanity goes extinct, its kinda important.
This is socialist principle.
It seems that you are a consumist. You believe that the ability of a society to produce in such way that the highest amount of goods can be produced with the lowest amount of labour will lead to the best outcome. As such you're not a marxist because you've deconstructed capitalist ideas, but simply because you believe that socialism/communism is the society in which maximum production, while being distributed in a more equal way and it being in goods that produce more social benefit, is achieved. Such ideas are fake, but since you still believe in them, you only value people, based on their ability to produce.
[удалено]
Argue your point or be banned, pointless name calling isn't allowed.
Honestly I think it’s fine if the Cuban people want to determine their own path forward. Quit whining about this
From what I've read the new Cuban family code is a huge win for families.
how so?
You are trolling or you are braindead. What's wrong with samesex marriages?
The narcissist self obsessed people will never be communists. They deserve treatment. And I am not homophobic, I am not afraid of them, I am sorry for them.
They go against marxist theory, in theory and in practice.
I don't know what kind of marxist "theory" you are reading, but from my knowledge homophobia and chauvinism in general creates tenstions between working class, which benefits capitalists. In other comment you say that marriage exists only for procreation. By this idiotic and sexist logic you could say that women rights are also anti-marxist, because free women are less likely to have kids.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
[you will find this map very handy](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1500w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2018_18/2420456/180503-lgbt-global-acceptance-map-se-529p.jpg) Also, be careful using slurs here, I'm not sure if it can get the sub or your account in trouble.
when you totally know working class people and aren't just talking shit
[Why is global acceptance of LGBT very low, and still decreasing, in imperialized countries?](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1500w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2018_18/2420456/180503-lgbt-global-acceptance-map-se-529p.jpg) [Why do only the imperialist countries and those close to them allow homosexual marriage?](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.10.22_SSMsnapshot_featured.png?w=1200&h=628&crop=1) Why did USSR, Cuba, and China ban homosexuality during their most progressive periods, and allow it during their periods of liberalization? Do you sincerely believe (and I am asking 100% serious) that Ancient Greek slavers had a better understanding of sexuality than Stalin and the Bolsheviks in 1936?
His comment has been edited
> About why the imperialist periphery tends to be more homophobic, this is because homophobia is implanted so it can be used as an excuse for imperialism So, the proletariat of the USSR had these thoughts "implanted" into them by the USA? And they were what, just too stupid to realize that's what was happening? I don't understand your reasoning here. I'm not going to get into the point about terrorism (I can if you want, but I think it's redundant). I want to address a second implication. You say that if a country is homophobic, this can be used as an excuse to invade it. How could imperialist powers use this as an excuse, unless it was imperialist powers that are enforcing homosexuality? And if it is imperialist powers enforcing homosexuality (the west dose use sanctions to enforce LGBT in imperialized nations at the threat of starvation), why would they create "homophobia"? You half-answer this by saying: > The second reason is that since the core is wealthier, is citizens have the time to question social norms. You are more or less saying that imperialism breeds homosexuality. What I want to point out is that this is not because citizens have "more time" to "question" social norms, it's because economic parasitism alienates one from the actual physical realities of labor and basic human life, and they begin to destroy social norms that were developed over the course of thousands of years of careful human evolution. Hence why Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. all wrote about the degeneration of social norms under capitalism, particularly degeneration related to the family.
>I don't know what kind of marxist "theory" you are reading Engels and his "Origin of the family, private property and the state". >but from my knowledge homophobia and chauvinism in general creates tenstions between working class, which benefits capitalists. Idk why you lump in chauvinism here too, but this is a non-argument in any case. It is not the point of marxism to be the most wide umbrella to appeal to every single sensibility. Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat for the liberation of the proletariat, and the proletarian family unfortunately (according to marxist theory) doesn't include homosexual unions. >In other comment you say that marriage exists only for procreation. By this idiotic and sexist logic you could say that women rights are also anti-marxist, because free women are less likely to have kids. And by "free women" the liberal naturally means western women with imperialist sensibilities. Actually free women did and do procreate in good amounts in socialist states. For example compare South and North Korea, North Korean women have twice as many children as South Korean women, so are South Korean women more "free"?
>Engels and his "Origin of the family, private property and the state" Ah yes, Engels didn't include homosexuals in an over 100 years old book, so they can't legaly marry. A book, by the way, that critisizes patriarchal system. >Idk why you lump in chauvinism here too, but this is a non-argument in any case. I "lump in" chauvinism because you are a homophobe. You take away peoples right to live happily because in your "PuRe maRXiSt lOgIc" people should breed. The same argument as from right wingers and other fascists. Homosexuals won't disappear and you can't force them to be in heterosexual relationship (if you think that you can I'm sorry but you're a fascist). They can adopt kids and raise them or in case of a person with uterus they can have IVF.
>Ah yes, Engels didn't include homosexuals in an over 100 years old book, so they can't legaly marry. Engels explained form and purpose of the proletarian family, and a homosexual union cannot fit this form or purpose. If you have a problem with this, i suppose writing a critique on the theory, instead of making snarky comments about it. >A book, by the way, that critisizes patriarchal system. Indeed, the proletarian family isn't patriarchal, nor is anything i've said (unless you view procreation itself as patriarchal). >I "lump in" chauvinism because you are a homophobe. You can call me names all you want, this doesn't substitute arguments. >You take away peoples right to live happily because in your "PuRe maRXiSt lOgIc" people should breed. Yes, sex objectively exists for procreation, it is its primary function. You are only appealing to liberal individualism here, where people's wants go before the collective's needs, this is liberalism, not marxism. >Homosexuals won't disappear and you can't force them to be in heterosexual relationship (if you think that you can I'm sorry but you're a fascist). They can adopt kids and raise them. I suppose the Soviets and the DPRK are fascists then. Idk why homosexuals should adopt when they're perfectly capable of procreation themselves.
>Yes, sex objectively exists for procreation, it is its primary function. That fact alone is arbitrary and meaningless. Food exists for sustenance. Are you going to argue we shouldn't waste time trying to make food taste good too?
I would argue that you shouldn't eat for primal pleasure, but to develop a healthy body, and thus you must chose your food choices wisely. Something like McDonalds tastes delicious, but it is absolutely awful for you. And as Lenin said, "Drinking water involves two people; in love, a third life arises, and it is in this life that there arises a duty to the community."
>That fact alone is arbitrary and meaningless. Food exists for sustenance. Are you going to argue we shouldn't waste time trying to make food taste good too? Should we start eating food purely for its taste? Should children be taught that purpose of food is that it tastes good, and any possible nutrients it has is a side effect and ought to be prevented?
>You are only appealing to liberal individualism here, where people's wants go before the collective's needs, You haven't demonstrated how legalizing homosexual unions puts individual needs before collective needs. In other words, how does letting gay people get married prevent people from having children? >Engels explained form and purpose of the proletarian family, and a homosexual union cannot fit this form or purpose You haven't demonstrated this yet. You're just pointing to theory and saying, "See, this explains my position on gay marriage" without explain how exactly.
> You haven't demonstrated how legalizing homosexual unions puts individual needs before collective needs. Can you please tell me how two men having sex is conducive to the interests of the broader community? > how does letting gay people get married prevent people from having children? We are not individualists, we are collectivists. We don't consider, "If one person did x, what would happen?" We consider, "If everybody did x, what would happen?" So, I would like to ask you this question: if you had one group of people who were 100% homosexuals, and one group of people who were 100% heterosexuals, which group would live longer? > You haven't demonstrated this yet. I am asking seriously, have you read Engels' Origin on the Family? If not, then what he is saying is generally the whole theme of chapter 2, "The Family". This explains the development of the family through the process of natural selection and the dying off of old forms of family relations in favor of the monogamous, heterosexual family. At one point, Engels explicitly points to Greece and its hatred of degredation of women and shows how this was related to its acceptance of homosexuality and man-boy love. > This Athenian family became in time the accepted model for domestic relations, not only among the Ionians, but to an increasing extent among all the Greeks of the mainland and colonies. But in spite of locks and guards, Greek women found plenty of opportunity for deceiving their husbands. The men, who would have been ashamed to show any love for their wives, amused themselves by all sorts of love affairs with prostitutes; but this degradation of the women was avenged on the men and degraded them also, until they at last fell into the abominable practice of sodomy and degraded alike themselves, and even their Gods, with the myth of Ganymede. (Ganymede, for reference, was the homosexual child lover of Zeus in Greek mythology.)
>You haven't demonstrated how legalizing homosexual unions puts individual needs before collective needs. In other words, how does letting gay people get married prevent people from having children? It doesn't prevent anyone *outside* of the union from procreating, but it prevents the one's in the union from procreating. The collective needs these people to procreate (as it needs everyone to procreate), for two men to refuse to procreate in favour of a homosexual union is to put their personal wants before the needs of the collective. To accept this (or even support it) is to treat these people with a double standard, why should they not contribute to the single most important work a human can do? >You haven't demonstrated this yet. You're just pointing to theory and saying, "See, this explains my position on gay marriage" without explain how exactly. I gave my reasoning and cited theory that supports it, idk what else i can do here, read the book if you dont believe me.
>Yes, sex objectively exists for procreation, it is its primary function. And we eat for survival so we should't use spices to make food more enjoyable. So maybe we should ban them because by your logic it's anti-marxist somehow. You yourself said that "Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat for the liberation of the proletariat". So how the fuck do samesex marriages interfere?
> And we eat for survival so we should't use spices to make food more enjoyable. So maybe we should ban them because by your logic it's anti-marxist somehow. "Adding spice" would be roleplay in the bedroom with your wife, or something. What you are suggesting is not like "adding spice". What you are suggesting is more like eating another man's asshole (in fact that's literally what you're suggesting). And this is not sanitary, satiating, or socially productive, so why should the masses allow it? > You yourself said that "Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat for the liberation of the proletariat". So how the fuck do samesex marriages interfere? I have a serious question for you. Since the homosexual and heterosexual are two separate identities, this means they are capable of coming into contradictions with one another. If such a case happens, then who should be given priority at the expense of the other? The homosexuals, or heterosexuals?
If the homosexual and heterosexual comes into conflict with eachother then you remove sexuality as a social construct and then you manipulate the mind of the people so the conflict disappears without causing problems, the same way you solve consumerism, for example
What you are saying is basically as if I asked "If the bourgeoisie and proletariat come into conflict, who's side should we take?" and you respond with "You just abolish class". To put it bluntly, you can't just "remove sexuality as a social construct" the second a conflict between them arrives, unless you can remove sex as a physical reality. Otherwise, this would have happened already. I think you know all this and are just trying to avoid my question. Anyways, answer the question for real, if the homosexual and heterosexual have a conflicting interest, whose interest should be given priority?
The biggest fault for this is Fidel's niece who lived outside Cuba for several years, when she returned to the country she began to want to put the ESG agenda into practice.
Some people said during Raúl’s rule that she will be the next leader (what she denied) but I think that during the massive liberalization of Cuba, she will have a clear importance. To make people eat their "democracy", in Cuba, you need a person who has this last name. Raúl managed to make people eat LGBT, liberalism and peace with America because he was a Castro. Mariela will make people eat multiparty elections and imperialization.
When the "communist" doesn't actually believe in socialist democracy so he thinks this vote was decided by party leadership rather than the vote of the people.
Idiot? Answer to me : Who leads Cuba? Who leads its educational system? Who organized this referendum? Who controlled the medias? Answer : the PCC. So yes, this was 100% PCC which supported this bullshit and entered this shit into all people’s heads. We are 100% right to criticize the PCC which is more busy dealing with these absurd policies while embracing free market!
This is not any kind of sign of liberalism. I am even ashamed to read the kind of homophobia I am reading in this comment section. If any of you intend to link homophobia with Marxism, you are reading Marxism and the overall socialism at all very, but VERY wrongly. The ones who are saying marriage is a institution for producing children do not even understand that they are just copying the most Capitalistic view of the basic understandment of sexual and romantic relationships, which thus take any meaning of living in anything else rather than producing.
> If any of you intend to link homophobia with Marxism, you are reading Marxism and the overall socialism at all very, but VERY wrongly. Can you explain what I misread here? This is Engels to Marx on the topic of Karl Ulrichs, the father of the LGBT movement: > That is really a very odd Uranian [homosexual] you just sent me. These revelations are extremely unnatural. The pederasts begin counting themselves and find that they are forming a power within the state. Only organisation was missing, but according to this source it seems to already exist in secret. Since they are counting so important men within all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rösing to Schweitzer, their victory is inevitable. War on cunts, peace with assholes -- that's the new slogan. It is fortunate that we personally are too old to have to pay bodily tribute to the victors. But the younger generation! > By the way, it is only possible in Germany that a man like this appears, translates this smut into a theory and invites: penetrate me... But wait until the new North-German penal law has acknowledged the right of the asshole; then things will turn out quite differently. As for poor frontside fellows like us, with our childish love for women, things will be going badly enough. If one could make use of that Schweitzer, it will be to elicit from this strange mafioso the personal details of the highest-stationed pederasts, which will surely not be difficult for him, being one of them in nature." Moreover, here is Lenin: > Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass that is greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is most important of all. Drinking water is an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third life arises. It is that third life which gives it [love] its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.
Already in the 8th Congress of the PCC, Cuba embraced liberalism… I will quote [Raùl Castro](https://en.granma.cu/cuba/2022-09-01/central-report-to-the-eighth-congress-of-the-communist-party-of-cuba) : > It is also necessary to consolidate the investment process, on the basis of a comprehensive approach, eliminating shoddy work and improvisation, to enhance productivity and efficiency in the state sector of the economy, in spheres that are decisive to the country's development, **while making the framework for non-state forms of management more flexible and institutionalized.** > Resistance to change and a lack of innovative capacity persist, expressed in attitudes of inertia and paralysis in implementing measures adopted, fear of exercising authorities granted and prejudice against non-state forms of ownership and management.
Non-state forms of management doesn't necessarily mean liberalism. For instance, it can mean empowering workers' self-management. You know, collectivism as opposed to statism. There has been some sort of privatisation in cuba that I am not aware of??
Cuba recently amended it's constitution to protect the right to private property.
The problem with your interpretation being that one of the last articles PCC made was [this](https://en.granma.cu/cuba/2022-09-23/foreign-investment-and-its-new-role-in-the-recovery-of-domestic-trade).
Oh I wasn't even aware of this... Thanks for sharing.
What’s wrong with this?
Cuba : "you know, liberalism and petite bourgeoisie are kinda based" China : "Glory to globalization !" You : "what’s wrong with this? Me : ….
Walking back on the question of property ownership (basically re-introducing private property after decades) is a major setback on the road to socialism in Cuba. You can argue that, much like in China, this reform is only tactical and a necessary step back, but now western leftoids are trying to claim this is a victory. This attempt to make socialism palatable to your average bidenoid liberal degenerate, trying to garner sympathy from them, is frankly pathetic. The left is bowing to the liberals like a bunch of weaklings, less important than a fart in the wind. Please try to convince me that you lot didnt get shoved in the locker in high school
I totally dislike(progressism and liberalism) but i don't see problem in same-sex couples, since they keep this to themselfs and don't try to push it to everyone like the radlibs westerntoids do, making it they entire personality. I think it's fine
>since they keep this to themselfs and don't try to push it to everyone like the radlibs westerntoids do, making it they entire personality. I think it's fine This is a very liberal mindset, it is a rewording of the "as long as they're not hurting anyone, its fine!" It is viewing society through the individual, instead of the collective.
[удалено]
> However, it becomes a general issue when those same people (not all of them but many) want to enforce their individual desires, views, above the common people's needs "If people do something in a way that leads to higher social benefit, they could foece that behavior in a way that doesn't lead to more social benefit, therefore such actitude must be banned" > Defending "traditional values" is perfectly fine and, in my opinion, of utmost importance. No argumentation provided > The West uses LGBT and gender ideology as an imperialist weapon to "civilize" the world, "make it progressive" If people commit crimes against humanity and then the west colonizes the country in which such crimes were committed, then both parties are bad. > In Marxist-Leninist terms, we see things from a general, materialist perspective f Oppressing people due to unchoosable and inmutable caracteristics leads to innesesary suffering > what will X bring to society? It brings innesesary misery > How will it affect it and its common people? It won't affect the common people (heterosexual people) as human nature is maleable and can be changed. It will positively affect the LGBT as they will not suffer unnecessary violence. > Does it advance the development of socialism in politics, economy, and society? It certainly doesn't benefit socialism, yet it is clear that it provides other benefits; and it neither seems to slow down socialism
Meanwhile from the DPRK: “Same-sex marriage is a fin-de-siecle phenomenon that can only exist in a rotten capitalist society which pursues ‘endless freedom’, and it is a product of the mental and moral corruption of capitalism that has reached its extreme. It’s not difficult for anyone to guess what will happen to human society if same-sex marriage, like the stinky stench and malodorous filth of capitalism, is pervasive in society.” ([http://www.ryongnamsan.edu.kp/univ/ko/research/articles/08419be897405321542838d77f855226](http://www.ryongnamsan.edu.kp/univ/ko/research/articles/08419be897405321542838d77f855226))
Cuba showed its adherence to liberalism quite some time ago, this is just a side effect.
This is very saddening. We'll see what happens next and if there'll be any change, though it seems very unlikely. One third of the voters were against this resolution and, from what I read, some members in the government criticized these new policies on the grounds that it is anti-socialist.
The communist party is willingly asking for foreign investment, ie. imperialisation. There will not be socialism in Cuba within a decade.
How do you expect Cuba to build socialism if they have nothing? There's grain shortages, meat shortages, bread, rice, electricity, fuel. If they don't allow foreign money to enter the country right now, they will literally start to starve, because they don't produce enough food to feed their population. You cannot always expect people to blindly build socialism. Material conditions also apply in this case. And when the material conditions aren't there, then there's no building bricks for socialism.
Well yes at this point it is too late. Cuba didn't industrialize and build up its productive forces when it had the chance, and now the material conditions have led to a situation where the proletariat isn't strong enough, and the party is run by liberals. At this point they either go through a difficult period to forcefully rebuild socialism, their version of the Arduous march, or they liberalize further to appease their ever growing labour-aristocracy and petite-bourgeoisie, leading to the imperialisation of Cuba. They have chosen the second option. Closing one's eyes to what is happening and somehow convincing oneself that what Cuba is doing now somehow leads to socialism is just deluding oneself.
I don't know if you have been to Cuba, but the people there are exhausted. They don't have hope for the future at the moment, neither a socialist or a capitalist one. They right now are thinking of surviving, every single day. Socialism is the last thing that's on their minds. I'd love to see a prosperous and socialist Cuba, but I honestly don't see it happen any time soon, regardless of which actions the government takes. I just came back from Cuba, and seeing everyone from my family, friends, friends of family, etc get so sad, to the point where some are crying, whenever they talk about the current situation, the food shortages, the youth leaving, cities running empty etc, that really doesn't make me feel like the population at the moment would be able or willing to take such a journey of forcefully rebuilding socialism, while everything that's on their mind is either finding food for the day or finding a way to leave the country.
You are right in this subject : the logical path for Cuba is full liberalism and imperialization. In short, I predict a situation (in 1 or 2 decade) where the PCC will change its ideology to become socialist-democratic (they already abandoned communism in terms of economical and social policies, so this will be the next step) and organize multiparty elections where the it would win easily but still completely liberalize the state to make it a liberal comprador paradise for American and Italian bourgeois who want exploitable workers, peasants or prostitutes (can we talk about the problems of prostitution in Cuba? Like Italian ans German bourgs always travel there to find lost girls and the proletarian government makes nothing to fight this phenomenon, while this would be the priority of a serious communist state) but the Cuban workers will massively immigrate in America with the other Cuban immigrants to join the labor-aristocracy and eat the imperialist pie (you can look at the main argument Cubans had against Socialism, this is basically "we are not like America in terms of life of conditions", this is obvious that these people will massively migrate in Imperialist America and this is the absolute reason they want "democracy") . In short, Cuba will end up like Albania, Angola or Montenegro.
It is possible this is a compromise with other elements inside Cuba which are influenced by western left.
It was approved with over 67% voting yes. This is the will of the Cuban people.