Sexuality not sex

hariette spierings hariette at
Tue Apr 16 04:12:48 MDT 1996

>As far as the Aldolfo and the Stalinists their puritan fake Leninists
>morality plays right into the hands of those who will keep poor and working
>class people chained.

Mr. Malecki - the advocate of using prostitution as a weapon of the class
struggle - calls people puritan and fake leninists for the crime of
upholding Lenin - and Engels - on the question of sexuality as it affects
COMMUNIST MORALE - i.e. the question of sexual behaviour IN RELATION, not to
civil society, but to the Party of the proletariat.

It does not matter to him that this "puritanism" charge has nothing to do
with reality and has roundly been dismissed - and proven to be false - not
on one, but on several occassions.  Nor does is matter to him that we have
consistently upheld the view that "what advances the cause of the
proletariat is moral, what retards it, is inmoral".  In other words, the so
called "puritans" have at no point passed any bourgeois moral judgements on

No. It does not matter to Malecki the anti-comunist "Stalinoid baiter".
Adolfo is a "stalinist" and that is sufficient for Malecki to feel that his
daily sex ration is under dire threat!

Now let us see this same Malecki working himself into a "Stalinist" mood all
of his own - I mean here "Stalinist" as defined by Malecki's own ridiculuos
mis-perception of comrade Stalin's ideas and actions.

Here below, we have Robert Malecki - the willing "red-pimp" for the
"benefit" of the Vietnamese peasant women and young street urchins of both
sexes (some of them - as used sexuality by the Gis during the War - hardly
any more than children themselves)- foaming into a lather of upright
bourgeois morality and high minded gestures upon a "sexual oppression too
far" - even for him to attempt to "liberate" under his own Heliogabalous

>As far as Pedofhils are concerned. This is certainly linked to the question
>of age of consent, and child prostitution which i believe communist should
>roundly condemn.
>Warm Regards

Ah! Prostitution is alright if promoted by "communists" and there where the
victims may be above the age of consent!.  What is the age of consent but a
bourgeois category - the going rate of social acceptance for sexual
practices in any given class society?  For Malecki, is fine to prostitute a
girl of 13 in Vietnam, but not one of 12 and 11 months and 29 days of age!.

It is fine to have sex with a poor destitute lad that looks up to you as a
meal ticket if he is just one day over the age of consent, whatever it
maybe, let's say in Britain, but wrong and to be "roundly condemned" - (on
what grounds other than bourgeois morals and bourgeois legislation, would
you roundly condemn paedofiliacs, Mr. Malecki?) - if the act took place in
another place where the age of consent maybe higher.

Tied into knots by his own contradictory views! That is what happens to
people like Malecki when they ask stupid questions about why did Soviet
legislation under Stalin repressed homosexuality.  Soviet legislation at
that time came to repress homosexuality on the grounds of state interest at
the time. That is the same grounds that Mr. Malecki's ideal "proletarian
state" would have to suppress "paedofilia" after "roundly condemning it".
On the grounds of the interests of the state - i.e. retention of state power
- vis a vis what the level of public opinion and social acceptability would

In the 1930s, in the 1940s, and in the 1950s, no state on earth, no serious
political party - not even the 4th International - raised this point against
Stalin.  Only crackpots similar to the "paedofilic associations" of today
who campaign against this form of "sexual oppression", spoke on the terms
Malecki uses TODAY against Stalin.  He forgets that today's democratic
climate and greater tolerance on the part of public opinion in the civilised
countries of the world, not only towards homosexuals but for all kinds of
democratic freedoms and rights, is ONLY the result of the retention by the
proletariat of state power in the Soviet Union.

That without that retention, Hitler would have impossed his 1000 years
Reich.  But then, quite a few Trotskysts at the time - not all, and not even
the majority, it is true -  actually worked towards that particular outcome
of the great historical anti-fascist test of strenght which necessitated
such concessions by the proletarian state to the moral climate of the times!.

This is why I said to him that he was welcomed to go set off a "sex riot" in
a Muslim Seraglio anytime he wishes to prove his "sexual liberation
theology".  Now, there is some place in our times where he has some real
windmills of obsolescence in sexual oppression to tilt his "proletarian
LANCE" against.

Adolfo Olaechea

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list