Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time: Fwd: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] Working with the RCP, Opposing the homophobia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <MAOIST_REVOLUTION@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Subject: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] Working with the RCP, Opposing the homophobia - debate on Kasama
To: MAOIST_REVOLUTION@yahoogroups.com

Working with the RCP, Opposing the homophobia

The publication of "My Life in a Red Closet" has encouraged a number of other people to share their experiences. The following comes from a long time supporter of the RCP who describes experiences of questioning and opposing the anti-gay line.

by Gary

I feel so many emotions reading Libri's piece.

First of all, compassion for someone so abused by supposed comrades. I can imagine the pain (and fear) inflicted at those coffee shop and Burger King meetings.

Secondly, anger at those inflicting the pain.

Third, puzzlement as to how people who think of themselves as "scientists" (or at any rate have in more recent times encouraged by Bob Avakian to see themselves as "scientists") could be so STUPID as to regard homosexual attraction as a problem requiring this kind of interference into a member or supporter's intimate life.

I knew the party was homophobic. And even while in the Brigade in the 70s I opposed the "line of homosexuality." I did so quietly, partly because I thought it might raise questions about my own sexuality. (It now seems strange to me that I would have once cared about such things. Why should I have ever held back in expressing my views about homosexuality, fearing that I might be considered gay? These days if someone mistook me as gay, I'd see it as similar to misspelling my name or misidentifying my ethnicity. Not a big issue. Such has society evolved; you certainly see it in the youth.)

Anyway, this is the first I've heard about this kind of Revolutionary Communist Party POLICING of people's sexuality.

"We're not interested in being bedroom police," the RCP used to say when (properly) attacked for their position of homosexuality. But here they were trying to do exactly that, expecting that Libri's commitment to the cause of revolution and to principles of democratic centralism would cause her to abandon her desire for women and even, to the party's relief, have some sex with men…

It can only be compared to the counseling programs providing by some Christian groups designed to "cure" gay people of their sinful inclinations.
To be sure, decent reasonable people have at many times in history held irrational prejudices about sexuality. In Marx and Engels' correspondence you find clear evidence of homophobia. (Engels after receiving a book from Marx by a pioneer on sex research proclaimed homosexuality "unnatural" and depicts it as such in The Family, Private Property and the State and elsewhere…)

But Marx and Engels lived in Victorian England, just before "sexology" emerged. They can be forgiven a certain amount of ignorance about sex, just as they can be forgiven a certain amount of ignorance about race (although they were among the most progressive Europeans of their time in thinking about both).

The RCP on the other hand was attacking gay people while U.S. society was undergoing a massive sea-change in knowledge and attitudes.
And they WERE attacking. That has to be said. The way the party has always tried to depict their "position on the question" just reeks of dishonesty and denial. The fact is, the wording of the first two versions of the party program depicted homosexuality as a social evil that the proletariat in power would get rid of. (I don't have those documents on hand right now but there was no doubt about the intent.) I heard Bob Avakian, in November 1977, at the founding convention of the RCYB (where we changed the named from Revolutionary Student Brigade), make derisive allusions to "faggots." He won some laughter and applause but also some negative reactions among the over 600 youth assembled in Illinois.
And the mistreatment of Libri was an attack. An effort to make her feel bad about who she was, related to issues of intimacy the party was pitifully unable to understand or "objectively analyze." I don't know how much that is rooted in party activists' own lifestyles and work methods—which might simply deny them exposure, or prevent them from developing sensitivity, to the richness of human sexual possibilities—and how much it's based on thoroughly dogmatic methods of thinking.

I was at a major event in ca. 1976. We were occupying a building from which residents were at threat of eviction. The RCP was playing a good role. This issue came up in a sidewalk conversation I happened to overhear between the local spokesperson of the RCP and a supporter. The former said something to the effect of, "Look, men love women, women love men. It's dialectical. If a man doesn't love women, he hates them…"

I thought to myself, how fucking stupid… But I was a college kid, and I did respect the guy, who showed good leadership in that and other struggles (before leaving the party a few years later). I remained silent.

Someone in that anti-eviction fight, highly respected in the community, was very impressed by the RCP and keen on attending the newly formed United National Workers Organization—I think that was what it was called—as its local representative. But the party vetoed that…. The guy was gay.

This was frankly discussed in the Brigade.

The contradictions were complex. There was a party member who served as a kind of liaison with the RCYB. I rarely disliked comrades but she really rubbed me wrong. She tried to bludgeon people into ideological obedience. I don't think she liked my attitude of honest inquiry or really understood the nuances of my arguments. But she did have a certain flexibility on the issue of homosexuality. She said something like, "Maybe the party will give a special exception here, for cultural reasons…"

At the time I did have some hope there would be a revolution sometime soon, and that the party would take power. So her comments were on the one hand somewhat comforting, but on the other hand, so irrational…. Why should there be geographic specificities to party policy on this question?

My point is that she, in hoping the party would "allow" homosexual behavior (not prosecuting or "re-educating" gays) wasn't trying to (and probably couldn't) address the issue honestly. She had to work within the party's dogmatic, authoritarian framework.

At one point in the 90s Noam Chomsky, who'd agreed to give a fundraising talk at a Revolution Books, pulled out of the arrangement after learning of the RCP's position on homosexuality. I was requested (as a friend of the party) to call him and urge him to reconsider.

"What am I supposed to tell him?" I asked. Well, I was told, you should explain that the party isn't against gay people, it just doesn't think homosexuality is the answer to women's oppression. It was just the nonsensical line of the 1988 document revising the earlier line (and changing the subject).

I declined to call Chomsky and said I think the party should learn from this experience and really change the line.

The RCP basically went from associating same-sex attraction with "bourgeois decadence" to emphasizing that it wasn't the answer to patriarchy (as though anyone was seriously arguing that it WAS) to (finally) acknowledging error—with some fanfare, issuing that "self-criticism" in (I think it was) 2000. That was largely a self-righteous defense.

"We had to study the question, and that took time. Now we've studied it, and produced this brilliant, lengthy, footnoted document that explains what we now believe about homosexuality—and, hey, good news, guys—we now think it's ok to be gay!"

I was glad to see it at the time, because I thought the party was doing good work overall and that they would be able to do better work now that they'd dropped their old line. But I also thought the "self-criticism" didn't go nearly far enough. Among other things, it made no acknowledgment of homophobia within the party. It made the party's earlier position sound like one of scholarly caution, changed due to the accumulation of scientific knowledge.

Now the RCP depicts advances in gay rights, including marriage, as products of mass struggle ("forced concessions"). But I agree with Selucha that they are not necessarily that. Yes the Stonewall Rebellion was a key moment. But broad changes in the understanding of sexuality and changes in social networking and institutional policies etc. have produced social changes influencing everyone from Log Cabin Republicans and Pentagon brass and the leaders of the Methodist church to self-defined communists. There was a significant historical connection between the CP-USA and the old gay rights movement in the U.S. (Mettachine Society founded by Harry Hay in 1950) but it's largely DESPITE radical left opposition or indifference that the gay rights movement progressed as it did.

The amazing thing is how the RCP went from seeing homosexuality as something that would be "eliminated" under socialism to seeing it as a right (and even depicting opposition to homosexuality including gay marriage as a key component of "Christian fascism"). How they went from condemning homosexual behavior to championing Queer Pride without knowing what that specific term even means.

I was interviewed once on the radio by an RCP supporter, concerning the controversy over the film the Passion of the Christ. The interviewer wanted to establish the Mel Gibson film as an example of "Christian fascist" propaganda and made reference in passing to the Christian fascist agenda as including opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage. I remarked—as any normal person would—well, the RCP has had a bad history on this. And the interviewer (seeming almost hurt) said, something to the effect of, hey be fair, they changed their line…

He seemed to want to quickly change the subject.

But the dishonesty and superficiality, as well as opportunism, of the line change should be obvious. The RCP's engagement with issues of sexuality (including pornography) remains simplistic, dogmatic and primitive.

This entry was posted on July 7, 2011 at 1:57 am and is filed under gay, homophobia, homosexuality, lesbian, Queer History, RCPUSA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Be the first to like this post.

15 Responses to "Working with the RCP, Opposing the homophobia"

Blake Edward Burns said

July 7, 2011 at 9:37 am
Excellent piece, this is the kind of rigorous, human-oriented, skeptical reflection that our community needs. Is that comic panel from a real comic, and where might I be able to read the whole thing?
ish said
July 7, 2011 at 10:01 am
That comic panel is from the RU document as republished and illustrated by Detroit anarchists. I'm working on scanning the whole thing.
anewworld said
July 7, 2011 at 10:30 am
Just for clarification, I think Ish was referring to the panel for the article below, not this one. (I don't know where the panel from this comic is from).
ish said
July 7, 2011 at 10:49 am
Nope, anewworld, the comic panel with "Homosexuality is based on petty-bourgeois ideology." There's a bunch of these panels combining Brenda Starr or somesuch with quotes from the RU in that pamphlet. Obviously they were added by the anarchists with a sense of humor.
McMeeting Alert said
July 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Not to be too flip, but the RCP's strange love of fast food restaurants for meetings was literally repulsive. Right across the street, a nice cafe or bar. But no. Two hour meetings in a fast food restaurant on general principle. YBers I knew called them "McMeetings."

Sorry, tangent. But I don't know how many hours I had to sit in those places while attempting to discuss politics and the world. Ug.
arel said
July 7, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Like Gary, I too was involved with the RU/RCP and the early RSB/RCYB. I remember my first discussion, at a party, with local RU members in 1974. The conversation was about Harvey Milk's first run for Supervisor in San Francisco. And I distinctly remember to this day the comment by a local leader, that "Under socialism, butt f*ckers would never be allowed to teach our children."

Needless to say, I was repulsed by the comment and spent a long time struggling with RU/RCP members and supporters on this question (over 30 years, by the way!) I have also struggled with that organization on many other issues and lines that I believed were incorrect. Over the years, I have been right on some issues (Boston busing) and wrong on others (the coup in China.) Other issues have yet to be resolved (believers in God cannot be Communists.) Yet I still support the RCP and see no other organization working actively for revolution in this country. I would be seriously worried about a person or organization that was "perfect."

BTW, the individual who made that remark back in 1974 has not been an RCP member for years. He is now in a leadership position in another communist organization that gets a lot of mention on Kasama. I can't help but wonder what he would have to say on this issue!
TOM CLEAR said
July 7, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I found myself reading this article after being led to this site from reading about the tragic news about my friends Paul and Monica Shay. I used to be involved in the Attica Brigade, RU, RCP. I have not been involved in the "movement" since the late 1970â€²s so I read with curiousity and amusement the thought line involved in this article. I felt I was in another planet. One thing I do want to respond to is the term "Christian Fascism." We could go on for hours about this. But I want to ask the question – how do you justify the persucution of the Christians in all the so called socialist goverments? Well – of course that must be the justified dictatorship of the prolertariat.
t1201971 said
July 7, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I'm no fan of Chairman Bob, but I've read "Away With All Gods", and I don't recall The Esteemed Chair calling for the persecution of Christians anywhere in that book.
Tell No Lies said

July 7, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Tom,

First, Paul and Monica are important people to many people here and I am sure that you are grieving as we are.

For the record, I, and I believe most all of us, are opposed to the persecution of people for their religious beliefs. Different socialist revolutions in the 20th century have dealt with this differently and clearly many wrongs were committed. I think we need to seriously learn from those errors if socialist or communist revolution is going to earn the sort of mass support it will need to win.

The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is so widely misunderstood (including by many communists) that I wonder about its salvagability. I will say this however: All the trappings of electoral democracy not withstanding, we presently live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. When Marx argued for the necessity of a dictatorship of the proletariat he was arguing that in the aftermath of a revolution that overthrew the dictatorial rule of a tiny minority class (the bourgeoisie) it would be necessary for the new majority ruling class (the proletariat) to use the repressive power of the state to prevent a counter-revolution. That is to say that the proletariat would have to exercise a "dictatorship" over the bourgeoisie, This was NOT an argument for what became the Gulag, though many will argue otherwise, but rather for a radically democratic society in which the majority class or classes long excluded from political power would finally rule.

I am an atheist but strongly of the view that people must be free in their religious thinking and practices so long as they are not oppressive of others. Given the extent of religious thinking among the proletariat, which we should not expect to disappear overnight, I think this is actually a precondition for the proletariat to actually rule.

I suspect that this response to your comment will not entirely satisfy you, but I hope it at least offers a window into our thinking here.
dodge said
July 8, 2011 at 1:39 am
The British are not churchgoers…or god botherers as the expression goes.. We object..sometimes strongly if it looks like a religion wishes to drag us back into some dark age. All in all we much prefer to ignore the subject. So much so the protestant Church OF England, with the Queen at its head, has been characterized "the TORY PARTY at PRAYER". Result..they ignore us we ignore them!! The history of how religion was `tamed' in Britain was interesting as some might say. Long and bloody suppression both internal and external. Scientific ideas erupted took hold. Manufacture requires a materialist mindset…a curiosity about that discounted the earth being made in 6 days.

The previous Popes visit to Britain was a financial disaster, shunned, he could not sell any of his cheap tatty souvenirs that was supposed to finance the visit. Vatican City is bust!! The planned visit of Pope Benedict XVI in September, ex Hitler Youth Movement member, generated widespread opposition.

Campaigning organisations of secular bodies, equalities groups and victims of clerical sexual abuse called upon the government not to fund the trip. Cameron pledged £20m. at a time of austerity and cutback in social services.

Our tactics and attitude to religion has always been dictated by circumstances, each era, each working class must develop tactics to suit the situation. If some sad country living under the yoke of a church that owns 60% of all arable land suddenly explodes into a fierce war against religion, I for one would not be surprised or in the least bit dismayed. If a country has a priest in the hills with a 5m peso price on his head, I say "all power to you mate!!" AMEN COMRADE!!

Dictatorship of the Proletariat….is a bloody mouthful…no mistake! Does it ,simply put, just mean RULE BY THE MAJORITY? In countries that have long ago seen the demise of all classes save working class and capitalist class then with over 95% of people working class…then yes …rule by the majority fits the bill.

So TOM I would say finally that the church in large measure gets the congregation it deserves….but that opens up a whole new can of worms..as always look at the history..it tells you everything one needs to know…..
TOM CLEAR said
July 8, 2011 at 11:52 am
Kim GreistKim Greist
TOM CLEAR said
July 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm
IT looks like I dropped a bomb and just left with my comments about Christian Facism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I wanted to make a few simple points. Do not try to justify persecution of Christians by stating their horrific institutional history. I totally agree with that and am shamed by it. So Dodge you are wasting your time by going into your foaming at the mouth diatribe…trying to justify the persecution of Christians under the pretense of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The next point is do not deny the horrific persecution of Christians by socialist systems that many of you hold up to be positive examples. I can document it and if you have the courage to really look at it, just give me an email. This is my MAIN point. They repressed them when there was absolute NO THREAT to their survival. If you have the courage to look at it will take the breath out of you.
What is my final point. It is not a matter of systems. I challenge you to convince me that the socialist system is superior…a placed I would really want to live. If you do I will be on of you most dedicated comrades

Tom Clear
PatrickSMcNally said
July 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm
"I challenge you to convince me that the socialist system is superior…"

If you mean that in relation to what had existed in prerevolutionary Russia or China, then, yes, what came to pass as the new socialist system in these countries was superior for the majority than what had existed prior. If you mean that in comparison with what the majority of people in the global capitalist world have lived over the last century, then the answer is still the same. But if you mean this in relation to the standard of living and level of civil liberties which has existed in the most advanced imperial societies, then clearly not. Many of these formally "socialist" states still retained great features of backwardness which don't deserve to be glorified.

The problem is though that:

a) Under the best conditions of economic prosperity, the more developed imperial states can not be used as a yardstick for measuring the impact of capitalism globally.

b) As capitalism becomes increasingly overgrown, with the rate of expected profit from further production on the decline because of overproduction, even workers in the most traditionally privileged imperial states are increasingly threatened with a declining standard of living.
Tell No Lies said

July 8, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Tom,

Dodge can defend himself, but I think your characterization of his comments is off the mark.

It seems important to be specific about what you are referring to as persecution. If we are talking about church properties accumulated over centuries by means of conquest, murder and exploitation being expropriated that is one thing. If we are talking about communities of the faithful being prohibited from worshiping as they see fit that is quite another. The problem is that these things tend to get lumped together by the priests and bishops who have a vested interested in using the justified outrage against the latter as a means of reversing the former. The persecution of people simply for their faith is wrong and I make no apologies for it. To the extent that it has occurred in the course of socialist revolutions, and the record on this score is quite varied, we should honestly acknowledge and condemn it. The question of the threat posed to newborn revolutionary societies is another matter. While such threats should not be used to justify trampling on peoples rights to worship freely,the threat of counter-revolution has not only been quite real it has frequently triumphed, and churches have in fact often served as refuges for counter-revolutionary forces. It is precisely for this reason that revolutionary regimes have sometimes resorted to the wholesale repression of religion.

The attitude here toward the socialist countries of the 20th century is not simply one of "holding them up as positive examples." If you take the time to search around here you will discover that, on the contrary, there is a much more mixed view of both their accomplishments and their crimes and a real desire to learn from the quite serious mistakes that often led to those crimes while refusing to accept the widespread demonization of revolutions that actually lifted hundreds of millions of people out of misery and gave them a taste of power over their own lives.
dodge said
July 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Sorry about foaming at the mouth, Tom, Wifey, daughter of a christian minister and a pious woman in the best sense of the word, is always chiding me. Usually , though it's Fox News THAT SETS ME OFF. BLOGS ARE A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH. i DON'T KNOW YOU…..AND YOU SURE AS HADES DON'T KNOW ME. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and be respectful. Besides we have competent and fair minded moderators who see `fair play'.

As to why anyone would persecute christians when they do such a perfect job themselves beats the h**l out of me. My `local' was bombed…the best pint of Guiness in London, by christians who did not like the christians who were regulars there. Well even before all the rubble was cleared up we set back to downing the black nectar. No point in letting a religious war get in the way of a good pint.

Nobody on these boards harbours the slightest wish to repress religious ideas….or people.as I said in my post that was done by christians. My father in law Church of Chriist attended once a year interdenominational meetings. He was a slightly built man but a man of great physical courage, an anti Japanese guerilla during the war, The family had to stop him attending on account of the injuries suffered in debates…he always returned black and blue. He had to admit though he was perhaps getting too old for those shenanigans. Wifeys uncle ws beheaded by muslims, but in all the time I have know her she has never done any Muslim a bad turn….quite the opposite in .fact..We have no truck with religious hatred, a hateful and barbaric poison that sucks the life out of society.

As far as a diatribe(foaming at the mouth) goes , I was more than content to be one of the silent majority who ignored the Popes visit by staying at home. The 15,000 who jeered him and said you are not welcome here exercised their democratic right to do so. I think perhaps you may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick if you thought I was justifying dictatorship of the proletariat. I was pointing to the fact that religion rarely intervenes positively in our lives.in short I am happy to live in a mature society where one can take it or leave it. I do hope that clears the air TOM, I look forward to hearing your take on how we can plot a course for a better tomorrow.. Rule by the majority must figure somewhere in all that.