[Marxism] Gay Emancipation

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Wed Apr 21 14:07:38 MDT 2004


In a message dated 4/20/2004 11:50:47 PM Central Standard Time, 
PLF13 at student.canterbury.ac.nz writes:

>Of course, the point might also be made that there is a difference
between formal legal equality and emancipation.

Most formal legal barriers to racial and gender equality have also been
removed in most of the imperialist countries and in a layer of Third
World countries as well.  

But *emancipation* requires something more.<

Reply

Excellent. 

We are really in another era of history and all our concept frame works are 
called into question. The emancipation of the sharecropper as it actually 
occurred in American history meant his dissolution - liquidation, as a class. That 
is what happened. In the main the 11 million sharecroppers - six million white 
and five million black, not longer exist as a class at the base of Southern 
agriculture. How we describe this process as exposition is a horse of a 
different color. 

We can all agree that the sharecropper as a class fell under the big wheel of 
the tractor. He was crushed into the earth and like the Phoenix, reemerged in 
the shape of the industrial proletariat. 

Emancipation. Wow. 

The slave was emancipated and his lot got worse. The defeat of Reconstruction 
and its political aftermath. How we describe this process in exposition 
cannot be confused with what happened. What happened was that the social relations 
of the plantation south did not change. What changes was the "form" of the 
social relations and there is not a category in Marxism called "the form of 
social relations." 

We Marxists of the American Union carry a heavy load. IT IS TRUE THAT WE HAVE 
BEEN THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD COMMUNIST MOVEMENT, BUT THIS IS ROOTED 
IN OUR SPECIFIC HISTORY. 

Our history has not been funny to us but very painful. Ours is a pure 
bourgeois country. We are catching up with our history and finding our place in 
history, in the face of privilege. We understand our relative privilege and have no 
intentions of flogging ourselves another hundred years. 

Gay Liberation or Gay Rights or Gay Emancipation is always placed - like any 
other aspect of the social movement, in a context. We can continue to flog 
comrades who were mistaken 30 years ago, but all of American society has advanced 
and attitudes changed. I periodically get mad about slavery and come from the 
most privilege section of the working class. Just because I may momentarily 
slip into stupidity does not mean you must. 

Speaking of slavery, one can look at the intractable social position of the 
African American people and then assess the social position of say women and 
Gays. The African American people as a class/people cannot get off of the bottom 
of the social ladder and the social ladder is an economic category. 

This is not true of Gay people. The reason Marxists and communists talk about 
issues from this point of view is not to measure ones pain and humiliation. 
Our assessment flows from a strategy involving bourgeois property and under 
what conditions its overthrow emerges as a value producing system becomes 
possible. 

Women as a class and I mean as a class, which is a departure in Marxism, 
occupy an intractable social position or economic relations in real society. Not 
all women are at the bottom of the proletariat, but the bottom of the 
proletariat is female. :-)  Many comrade will not find the last sentence funny.

Ok. 

Gay Liberation is a subsidiary social issue of the Women Factor. Not because 
Gays are women, but because the social position of women is the essence of the 
property question and domination on earth. Liberating the proletariat meant a 
certain form of struggle during the time of Marx. Today the proletariat is 
female. 

The problem is industrial logic or the meaning one attaches to "subsidiary." 
Somehow subsidiary means unworthy. This is not the case. 

This does not mean Gays or blacks or Mexicans are less important, but is an 
assessment of how society behaves and on what basis it will leap forward. 
Emancipating women is going to emancipate everyone on earth because of their 
historic and intractable social position as the division of labor evolved on earth.  

An intractable social position means ones placement in a system of production 
and is an economic category in its fundamentality. One get a headache 
unraveling the economic category of Gays. The Gay movement is becoming reactionary - 
in my opinion, not because Gays are Gay. But because of its class content as 
an identity movement. This does not mean Gay people are any more backwards than 
any other section of American society. 

Niggas the most backwards mutherfuckers in American society and I can say 
this because I am one. :-) This is a historical question. One can be militant and 
trapped in the logic of an intractable social position and be backwards. The 
African American is just shedding his petty bourgeois class orientation. The 
ideology and striving amongst a huge section of the African American people is 
"to have my own." 

This is a property relations. 

The Gay Movement is more complex because they are not at the bottom of 
society by any estimate. It is a mistake to believe that comrades have not thought 
out this question for the last 30 years. 

We are talking about overthrowing the property relations and political rights 
for everyone. No one is saying that Gays are to sit at the back of the bus. 
What is being stated is for all of us to look at the back of the bus and it is 
female. 

You dig? 

But then again, what do I know? I am the resident Stalinists, dogmatically 
clinging to Marx economic theory and the guy condemning ideological 
homosexuality. I also condemned "blackism" - first and foremost. And have no special love 
for ideological feminists. 

I have had enough of ideology, which is really ones philosophy of their 
particular group at this point in time. 

We are abolitionist on the side of the proletariat. The proletariat has a 
vagina in its fundamentality. What is does with this vagina is not the 
fundamental question, but an issues of political rights. How this vagina is compelled to 
sell its labor power is issue number one. Yes, that are other important 
issues or there would not be an issue number one. 

Is "black" more important than the Women Factor? Or do we need to pose the 
social question different from the previous generation of communists and Marxist 
thinkers? 

Melvin P.  




More information about the Marxism mailing list