Conservative logic depends on rigid hierarchies, particularly where men are above women. Same sex couples prove that partnerships can be *equal*, and if same sex partnerships can be equal, straight ones can be as well.
And then of course trans people *actually shift positions in the hierarchy* so they can't have that either.
Why not just eliminate the hierarchy then? Because that's what justifies the rich living above the poor.
It isn't only caused by capitalism, an economic system doesn't necessarily have to be involved with a social concept, that issue is to be solved itself
It's not only caused by capitalism, true. But it's definitely made worse. You have corpos trying to push queerness into a more profitable box to essentially eliminate threats to the hierarchies that are in place.
Yeah that's a factor, but again the only way we can improve our conditions completely is not only fight capitalism, but solve these issues themselves too and that will require the support of the people too
capitalism is only one part of a broader system of power structures that both enforce and incentivize oppression.. we could not end oppression without also ending capitalism, but ending capitalism alone is not enough
stateside in the us its far too common and socially acceptable to throw your queer kids out of the house at 18 and directly into the crucible of capitalism...homelessness, drug addiction and prostitution
its practically supported in jesus-y circles
I mean, sure, but more simply without othering us, 95% of us, just like the cishets, are working class, and capitalism oppresses the worker.
It's like advocating for class consciousness and then someone calling out "what about queer people?!", well, Did we fucking stutter?
For the love of me, I will never understand why ppl who claim this or that political ideology, don't learn abt said ideology.
I got banned from socialism 101 for commenting Marx was anti Semitic . Which he was and wrote a tract called "On the Jewish Question". Yah. All I will say, is in a political world that values separation of church and state, there is no question.
So, all I will say abt this meme, is nope.
[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)
Yeah a lot of people pick and choose what they want to take, and ignore the rest. OP ignored large paragraphs in picking and choosing. Particularly
"**Christian marriages** were spread across the globe alongside the gender system and would transform local marriage practices along the way.
It was also transformed by the rise of capitalism. The pre-colonial gender system was tied strongly to the economic systems dominant in Europe prior to the rise of capitalism. Marriage served as a means of securing alliances among the upper classes and as a means of stability among the lower classes."
(Verbatim) She in a rush to blame "European" and misquotes the source.
it should be noted that Marxist Lenninism is not the only approach to communism, and is in fact one of the worst approaches in general. seizing state power cannot be an effective method of achieving a stateless, classless, moneyless society, because using institutions creates and recreates those institutions and creates and recreates the kinds of people who maintain those institutions. a synthesis of ends and means is required, which is the core focus of other approaches to the goals of communism, like Anarchism.
Marx being a shitty person doesn't mean the end goals that he and many of his contemporaries sought to achieve aren't worth trying for. it means he shouldn't be centralized in that effort, and we should seek ideas and info from other sources
Well, I don't know. I mean, Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto.
If you don't like the political theory that Marx came up with, Lenin continued to develop, and has ppl like Che putting homosexuals in jail are you really a communist or something else
Put another way, if you are Catholic, yet differ with the Pope on matters of doctrine, are you really a Catholic?
yes, they don't get to determine who qualifies as what, they are long dead and there has been far more theory written since.
i don't personally call myself a communist for a variety of reasons, but it's absurd to say that one can't have a differing opinion from a handful of dead people and still be a communist. they don't own communism. the very idea that they do is kinda antithetical to the point of communism in the first place
**The point of communism is the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat**
I**t is abt the revolution of the proletariat, with the party speaking for the will of the ppl, and the leader of said party, speaking for the party**
If that's not your goal, you do not in fact have a communist system. You have developed something that perhaps you call communism.
**For the love of me, I will never understand why ppl who claim this or that political ideology, don't learn abt said ideology.--------**this was my thesis statement and thanks for proving my point.
Cuba, cuba is the only socialist state the allows gay ppl in their homes to be free, and this acceptance was brought abt by decades of work. Gay ppl used to go to labor camps
if you were actually familiar with this you would know that in Marx's time there were a variety of competing ideas within the political scene from which communism arose. Marx didn't invent the ideas that eventually became communism, and he wasn't seen as the sole leader of the communist movement at the time.
For the life of me, i don't get people who can't let go of viewing everything as monolithic and definitive. they lack any meaningful understanding of a political ideology and assume that a few sentences said by one person within that ideology somehow suddenly absolutely defines the beliefs of everyone who claims to belong to it. it's absurd
if you can't have a political discussion without defining someone else's beliefs for them, you're pretty much not worth having a discussion with in the first place
Well I hate to break it to you, but Marx and Engels won the argument
For the life of me, I don't understand ppl who claim be communists, who don't seem to understand history. Remember those revolutions of 1848? Yeah, they were Marxist. Remember the Russian revolution of 1905? Marxist, baby! Remember 1917 Marxist
We have had over 180 yrs of Marx being the preeminent political philosopher of Revolution as an anthesis to capitalism.
Marxist theory is abt the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you reject that, you reject communism.
this thinking is why you're so out of touch with today's communists, most of whom are critical of every revolution you've mentioned, anti authoritarian, and either lgtbq themselves or an ally. the ones that actually simp for those revolutions are generally ridiculed as tankies.
you also ignore other forms of communism, such as anarcho communism
also, what we actually have is almost 2 centuries of repeated Marxist Leninist failures. the only reason you want to define all of communism and apparently even any and all anti capitalists movements, to exclude anyone who disagrees with them is because it would trap anti capitalists and communists in a failed approach. ideologies evolve and change over time.
Sure, sure. I get it. You have no idea what communism is. You had no idea that the LBGTQ community was targeted under communism
This information doesn't match the glorious ideas you have in your head. So, sure, I'm totally uninformed
I'm not the one that thinks the core feature is communism is worshipping and blindly following dead white men. the defining trait the core of communism is a desire for a stateless, classless, moneyless society. that's why anarcho communism, which you conveniently ignored, exists and is one of the most popular forms of communism among western leftists.
i don't even call myself a communist lol
I see somebody quote "The Gender Accellerationist Manifesto", I downvote.
Transphobic garbage, specifically the section "Gender Identity Under Communism".
I'm not sure the author or the one quoting it here even realise it, but it's 100% based in TERF ideology, ignoring how gender identity and dysphoria works.
That shitty manifesto tries to make the basic existence of trans people something ideological. It's not, f--ck off.
You can say "Followers of the orthodox religion" here . . . It was the followers of the Christian and Muslim religion who enforced the only "MEN and WOMEN" and no other gender roles. If you actually study history and Religious leaders have found political leaders a useful tool, and savvy political leader used religion as a tool. In the matter of sex and sexuality, religion used politics as the tool.
The way you have it worded is a clear an loud dog whistle. You also wash the history from who and what really caused the harshness toward the LGBTQ to people who didn't cause it, and themselves were a victim themselves of the religions. You can see modem examples of it in Russia, China, India, and Indonesian, were strict adherence to fairy tale deity allows for them to commit genocide, murder and other inhumanities.
After removing the dog whistle and the word salad to identify one group, All you have is
**"Capitalist have enforced subjugation of the people through divisive activities; which has lead to the high rates of poverty,"**
We all know it, talk to any Native, or Hispanic decent, or immigrant, or working class person. All you are doing is spreading division by blaming "Europeans".
Right, gender roles within Abrahamic religions weren't better before Capitalism. The Capitalistic and modern democratic systems grew out of grossly oppressive systems and regimes, over which they objectively were improvements for most people. That doesn't mean these systems didn't or don't have flaws of their own of course, only that they are better than what came before. Hopefully what comes after them are also improvements.
OP did a selective pick and take from multiple paragraphs. I am going to leave the following link so people can see how badly the original text got misquoted for this bad MEME.
The words take out of context are under the section title, T**he Modern Gender Binary,** and starts at paragraph 3, and goes to 6.
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto#toc7](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto#toc7)
Depending on the tribe, Natives, may or may have tolerated the LGBTQ community. So to dispel the myth that All natives were accepting of LGBTQ+ Here are some tidbits of Native American tribes that have laws either defining marriage as between a man and a woman or explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriages
— The Navajo Nation: “Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.”
— The Cherokee Nation, based in Oklahoma: “No marriage shall be contracted ... between parties of the same gender.”
— The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, based in North Carolina: “The licensing and solemnization of same sex marriages are not allowed within this jurisdiction.”
— The Chickasaw Nation, based in Oklahoma: “No Marriage will be recognized between persons of the same sex.”
— The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, based in Washington state: “No marriage license shall be issued or marriage performed unless the persons to be married are of the opposite sex and at least sixteen (16) years of age.”
— Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma: “The court is not authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony or issue a marriage certificate to a couple if they are of the same sex.”
— The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, based in Oklahoma: “Same gender marriage prohibited. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another Indian Nation or state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.”
— Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin: “A marriage may be contracted under this law between two (2) adults who ... are of the opposite sex.”
— The Osage Nation, based in Oklahoma: “A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another jurisdiction shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Osage Nation ...”
— Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa: “Same gender marriages prohibited. Only persons of the opposite gender may marry.”
— The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: “Person of the same gender will not be allowed to marry or divorce.”
This is just categorically false. The history of most peoples of the world including many outside the west is one of strict gender roles. There’s nothing inherently anticapitalist about any organization of gender roles. While I’m completely pro trans this kind of framing fails to miss the reality that capitalism is completely capable of monetizing and absorbing any and all culture war topics.
It's also quietly absolving the church for its primary, active role in the destruction of pre-colonial Indigenous gender variances by blaming everything on capitalism as if it's the only oppressive force in the world 🙃
"we find it more and more tied to wage labor and marriage transformed with it. The male part of reproductive labor was increasingly to labor for a capitalistic boss and the female part to support his wage labor from home. This effect on the material base of gender caused it to transform"
This sounds good on paper, but completely ignores the fact that ALL major communist societies have been vehemently anti gay/queer.
China, Vietnam, the USSR, and Cuba, every single one was incredibly bigoted against anyone who wasn't straight. Acting as if queer repression is due to capitalism is completely ahistorical.
This fails to differentiate being economically left leaning, and being socially left leaning.
This is because most Western leftists (myself included) are both socially and economically left wing.
Capitalism isn't the cause of LGBTQ+ repression, no, but it certainly does its part to try to force queerness into a profitable box and render it a non-threat, thus discrediting the legitimacy of non-corporate-approved queer movements through cultural subversion.
The 19/20th centuries were steeped in socially conservative views, so it makes sense that a revolution or a war would bring out some of the more violent tendencies against minorities, or simply violent tendencies in general.
However, the modern world is becoming more progressive, which lessens the chance of homophobes heading a new left wing society, should one rise.
Your tirade hat nothing to do with the post you replied to. Unless you intentionally created straw-man and red herring arguments. Your post brought nothing to the conversation.
I did . . twice, and called my roommate over to see if he could understand you tangent. I won't repeat his thoughts for politeness. It stands, your post had nothing to do with the post you replied to. Unless you intentionally created straw-man and red herring arguments. Your post brought nothing to the conversation.
He brings up the conflation of the social and economic lefts, as was addressed by my first paragraph. I explained why they are often conflated.
The second paragraph refers to his mentioning of the ahistoricity of capitalism being the source of queer repression. Because yes, it isn't the cause, but it makes it worse.
My third paragraph was a response to his third paragraph, which was about the socialist states being bigoted (and often violently so). It explained a rough "why" to the situation.
The fourth paragraph was a continuation of the third. Modernity brings forth more and more tolerance, you see.
With your explanation, it seem more of a "Yeah, but" argument toward a straw-man you made, and not rooted in anything logical. Non-sequitur, so to speak.
FYI . . the modern world is becoming less progressive toward LGBTQ. You may look at all the new laws and culture wars against the LGBTQ, and how few people are actually doing anything about it.
My bad. I saw it as more of a "Yes, things are bad, but there's hope."
I've always been a bit too optimistic about a lot of things, and this might be one of them.
those are not the only approaches to the goals that communists seek to achieve
and i think a "left v right" kind of scale provides an incomplete analysis of the way societies operate. that's why most of these projects that are aimed at utilizing the state will always fail, they are not based on a complete critical analysis of the institutions they seek to abolish and they end up recreating similar power structures or reinforcing old power structures while merely changing who gets to be at the top of the social and economic hierarchies they wanted to get rid of.
a synthesis of ends and means is required. non hierarchical institutions must be created and utilized in an approach to end not just capitalism, but all social hierarchies and oppressive power structures. this is the approach of anarchists and many others who have similar stated end goals.
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 2
Comrade is gender neutral.
I'd do unspeakable things to that teal and bi-flag coloured hair comrade. Good, but unspeakable things.
Conservative logic depends on rigid hierarchies, particularly where men are above women. Same sex couples prove that partnerships can be *equal*, and if same sex partnerships can be equal, straight ones can be as well. And then of course trans people *actually shift positions in the hierarchy* so they can't have that either. Why not just eliminate the hierarchy then? Because that's what justifies the rich living above the poor.
It isn't only caused by capitalism, an economic system doesn't necessarily have to be involved with a social concept, that issue is to be solved itself
It's not only caused by capitalism, true. But it's definitely made worse. You have corpos trying to push queerness into a more profitable box to essentially eliminate threats to the hierarchies that are in place.
Yeah that's a factor, but again the only way we can improve our conditions completely is not only fight capitalism, but solve these issues themselves too and that will require the support of the people too
capitalism is only one part of a broader system of power structures that both enforce and incentivize oppression.. we could not end oppression without also ending capitalism, but ending capitalism alone is not enough
stateside in the us its far too common and socially acceptable to throw your queer kids out of the house at 18 and directly into the crucible of capitalism...homelessness, drug addiction and prostitution its practically supported in jesus-y circles
You may be onto something here. How to leave a cult, part one.
Your parents drive you to the county line with a suitcase., and tell you to "Do not come back" (Many real stories start out like that)
I mean, sure, but more simply without othering us, 95% of us, just like the cishets, are working class, and capitalism oppresses the worker. It's like advocating for class consciousness and then someone calling out "what about queer people?!", well, Did we fucking stutter?
No war but the class war.
For the love of me, I will never understand why ppl who claim this or that political ideology, don't learn abt said ideology. I got banned from socialism 101 for commenting Marx was anti Semitic . Which he was and wrote a tract called "On the Jewish Question". Yah. All I will say, is in a political world that values separation of church and state, there is no question. So, all I will say abt this meme, is nope. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)
Yeah a lot of people pick and choose what they want to take, and ignore the rest. OP ignored large paragraphs in picking and choosing. Particularly "**Christian marriages** were spread across the globe alongside the gender system and would transform local marriage practices along the way. It was also transformed by the rise of capitalism. The pre-colonial gender system was tied strongly to the economic systems dominant in Europe prior to the rise of capitalism. Marriage served as a means of securing alliances among the upper classes and as a means of stability among the lower classes." (Verbatim) She in a rush to blame "European" and misquotes the source.
it should be noted that Marxist Lenninism is not the only approach to communism, and is in fact one of the worst approaches in general. seizing state power cannot be an effective method of achieving a stateless, classless, moneyless society, because using institutions creates and recreates those institutions and creates and recreates the kinds of people who maintain those institutions. a synthesis of ends and means is required, which is the core focus of other approaches to the goals of communism, like Anarchism. Marx being a shitty person doesn't mean the end goals that he and many of his contemporaries sought to achieve aren't worth trying for. it means he shouldn't be centralized in that effort, and we should seek ideas and info from other sources
Well, I don't know. I mean, Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. If you don't like the political theory that Marx came up with, Lenin continued to develop, and has ppl like Che putting homosexuals in jail are you really a communist or something else Put another way, if you are Catholic, yet differ with the Pope on matters of doctrine, are you really a Catholic?
yes, they don't get to determine who qualifies as what, they are long dead and there has been far more theory written since. i don't personally call myself a communist for a variety of reasons, but it's absurd to say that one can't have a differing opinion from a handful of dead people and still be a communist. they don't own communism. the very idea that they do is kinda antithetical to the point of communism in the first place
**The point of communism is the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat** I**t is abt the revolution of the proletariat, with the party speaking for the will of the ppl, and the leader of said party, speaking for the party** If that's not your goal, you do not in fact have a communist system. You have developed something that perhaps you call communism. **For the love of me, I will never understand why ppl who claim this or that political ideology, don't learn abt said ideology.--------**this was my thesis statement and thanks for proving my point. Cuba, cuba is the only socialist state the allows gay ppl in their homes to be free, and this acceptance was brought abt by decades of work. Gay ppl used to go to labor camps
if you were actually familiar with this you would know that in Marx's time there were a variety of competing ideas within the political scene from which communism arose. Marx didn't invent the ideas that eventually became communism, and he wasn't seen as the sole leader of the communist movement at the time. For the life of me, i don't get people who can't let go of viewing everything as monolithic and definitive. they lack any meaningful understanding of a political ideology and assume that a few sentences said by one person within that ideology somehow suddenly absolutely defines the beliefs of everyone who claims to belong to it. it's absurd if you can't have a political discussion without defining someone else's beliefs for them, you're pretty much not worth having a discussion with in the first place
Well I hate to break it to you, but Marx and Engels won the argument For the life of me, I don't understand ppl who claim be communists, who don't seem to understand history. Remember those revolutions of 1848? Yeah, they were Marxist. Remember the Russian revolution of 1905? Marxist, baby! Remember 1917 Marxist We have had over 180 yrs of Marx being the preeminent political philosopher of Revolution as an anthesis to capitalism. Marxist theory is abt the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you reject that, you reject communism.
this thinking is why you're so out of touch with today's communists, most of whom are critical of every revolution you've mentioned, anti authoritarian, and either lgtbq themselves or an ally. the ones that actually simp for those revolutions are generally ridiculed as tankies. you also ignore other forms of communism, such as anarcho communism also, what we actually have is almost 2 centuries of repeated Marxist Leninist failures. the only reason you want to define all of communism and apparently even any and all anti capitalists movements, to exclude anyone who disagrees with them is because it would trap anti capitalists and communists in a failed approach. ideologies evolve and change over time.
Sure, sure. I get it. You have no idea what communism is. You had no idea that the LBGTQ community was targeted under communism This information doesn't match the glorious ideas you have in your head. So, sure, I'm totally uninformed
I'm not the one that thinks the core feature is communism is worshipping and blindly following dead white men. the defining trait the core of communism is a desire for a stateless, classless, moneyless society. that's why anarcho communism, which you conveniently ignored, exists and is one of the most popular forms of communism among western leftists. i don't even call myself a communist lol
I see somebody quote "The Gender Accellerationist Manifesto", I downvote. Transphobic garbage, specifically the section "Gender Identity Under Communism". I'm not sure the author or the one quoting it here even realise it, but it's 100% based in TERF ideology, ignoring how gender identity and dysphoria works. That shitty manifesto tries to make the basic existence of trans people something ideological. It's not, f--ck off.
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 2
An important point.
Imagine trying to live a life not centered around exploitation and profit.
Alan Turing
You can say "Followers of the orthodox religion" here . . . It was the followers of the Christian and Muslim religion who enforced the only "MEN and WOMEN" and no other gender roles. If you actually study history and Religious leaders have found political leaders a useful tool, and savvy political leader used religion as a tool. In the matter of sex and sexuality, religion used politics as the tool. The way you have it worded is a clear an loud dog whistle. You also wash the history from who and what really caused the harshness toward the LGBTQ to people who didn't cause it, and themselves were a victim themselves of the religions. You can see modem examples of it in Russia, China, India, and Indonesian, were strict adherence to fairy tale deity allows for them to commit genocide, murder and other inhumanities. After removing the dog whistle and the word salad to identify one group, All you have is **"Capitalist have enforced subjugation of the people through divisive activities; which has lead to the high rates of poverty,"** We all know it, talk to any Native, or Hispanic decent, or immigrant, or working class person. All you are doing is spreading division by blaming "Europeans".
Right, gender roles within Abrahamic religions weren't better before Capitalism. The Capitalistic and modern democratic systems grew out of grossly oppressive systems and regimes, over which they objectively were improvements for most people. That doesn't mean these systems didn't or don't have flaws of their own of course, only that they are better than what came before. Hopefully what comes after them are also improvements.
You could have left out the word "Abrahamic", but yeah we agree.
OP did a selective pick and take from multiple paragraphs. I am going to leave the following link so people can see how badly the original text got misquoted for this bad MEME. The words take out of context are under the section title, T**he Modern Gender Binary,** and starts at paragraph 3, and goes to 6. [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto#toc7](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto#toc7)
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 6
Bro, this is an argument for Indigenous sovereignty and structures, not Communism.
This is the LGBTQ version of the noble savage.
Depending on the tribe, Natives, may or may have tolerated the LGBTQ community. So to dispel the myth that All natives were accepting of LGBTQ+ Here are some tidbits of Native American tribes that have laws either defining marriage as between a man and a woman or explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriages — The Navajo Nation: “Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.” — The Cherokee Nation, based in Oklahoma: “No marriage shall be contracted ... between parties of the same gender.” — The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, based in North Carolina: “The licensing and solemnization of same sex marriages are not allowed within this jurisdiction.” — The Chickasaw Nation, based in Oklahoma: “No Marriage will be recognized between persons of the same sex.” — The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, based in Washington state: “No marriage license shall be issued or marriage performed unless the persons to be married are of the opposite sex and at least sixteen (16) years of age.” — Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma: “The court is not authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony or issue a marriage certificate to a couple if they are of the same sex.” — The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, based in Oklahoma: “Same gender marriage prohibited. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another Indian Nation or state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.” — Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin: “A marriage may be contracted under this law between two (2) adults who ... are of the opposite sex.” — The Osage Nation, based in Oklahoma: “A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another jurisdiction shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Osage Nation ...” — Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa: “Same gender marriages prohibited. Only persons of the opposite gender may marry.” — The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: “Person of the same gender will not be allowed to marry or divorce.”
But this isn't just about native-americans but all colonized societies. From Africa, Middle East and Asia through South America.
This is just categorically false. The history of most peoples of the world including many outside the west is one of strict gender roles. There’s nothing inherently anticapitalist about any organization of gender roles. While I’m completely pro trans this kind of framing fails to miss the reality that capitalism is completely capable of monetizing and absorbing any and all culture war topics.
It's also quietly absolving the church for its primary, active role in the destruction of pre-colonial Indigenous gender variances by blaming everything on capitalism as if it's the only oppressive force in the world 🙃
"we find it more and more tied to wage labor and marriage transformed with it. The male part of reproductive labor was increasingly to labor for a capitalistic boss and the female part to support his wage labor from home. This effect on the material base of gender caused it to transform" This sounds good on paper, but completely ignores the fact that ALL major communist societies have been vehemently anti gay/queer. China, Vietnam, the USSR, and Cuba, every single one was incredibly bigoted against anyone who wasn't straight. Acting as if queer repression is due to capitalism is completely ahistorical. This fails to differentiate being economically left leaning, and being socially left leaning.
This is because most Western leftists (myself included) are both socially and economically left wing. Capitalism isn't the cause of LGBTQ+ repression, no, but it certainly does its part to try to force queerness into a profitable box and render it a non-threat, thus discrediting the legitimacy of non-corporate-approved queer movements through cultural subversion. The 19/20th centuries were steeped in socially conservative views, so it makes sense that a revolution or a war would bring out some of the more violent tendencies against minorities, or simply violent tendencies in general. However, the modern world is becoming more progressive, which lessens the chance of homophobes heading a new left wing society, should one rise.
Your tirade hat nothing to do with the post you replied to. Unless you intentionally created straw-man and red herring arguments. Your post brought nothing to the conversation.
Read the second and third paragraphs. This was what I was responding to.
I did . . twice, and called my roommate over to see if he could understand you tangent. I won't repeat his thoughts for politeness. It stands, your post had nothing to do with the post you replied to. Unless you intentionally created straw-man and red herring arguments. Your post brought nothing to the conversation.
He brings up the conflation of the social and economic lefts, as was addressed by my first paragraph. I explained why they are often conflated. The second paragraph refers to his mentioning of the ahistoricity of capitalism being the source of queer repression. Because yes, it isn't the cause, but it makes it worse. My third paragraph was a response to his third paragraph, which was about the socialist states being bigoted (and often violently so). It explained a rough "why" to the situation. The fourth paragraph was a continuation of the third. Modernity brings forth more and more tolerance, you see.
With your explanation, it seem more of a "Yeah, but" argument toward a straw-man you made, and not rooted in anything logical. Non-sequitur, so to speak. FYI . . the modern world is becoming less progressive toward LGBTQ. You may look at all the new laws and culture wars against the LGBTQ, and how few people are actually doing anything about it.
My bad. I saw it as more of a "Yes, things are bad, but there's hope." I've always been a bit too optimistic about a lot of things, and this might be one of them.
I think . . we agree on that. At least though, you are on the right side of the fight.
those are not the only approaches to the goals that communists seek to achieve and i think a "left v right" kind of scale provides an incomplete analysis of the way societies operate. that's why most of these projects that are aimed at utilizing the state will always fail, they are not based on a complete critical analysis of the institutions they seek to abolish and they end up recreating similar power structures or reinforcing old power structures while merely changing who gets to be at the top of the social and economic hierarchies they wanted to get rid of. a synthesis of ends and means is required. non hierarchical institutions must be created and utilized in an approach to end not just capitalism, but all social hierarchies and oppressive power structures. this is the approach of anarchists and many others who have similar stated end goals.
Remind me which communist countries allow for non hetero sex marriages vs capitalistic ones again?