CommieGabredabok [he/him, comrade/them]

Here are the current results of the poll. It will be fun watching Claudia run circles around all the libs in the future 3rd party debate

🗣🔊 Unlimited hostages on the first world 🔥 🔥

He is a white midwestern liberal American that is an active member of the US airforce.

I don’t mean to get “third worldist” or “adventurist,” and maybe I am just out of my mind right now, but he gets the wall for sure.

I love that quote, never seen it before.

My father and I were actually arguing for over two and a half hours straight. As you can expect, with him lazily going through narratives from the NED, Amnesty International, “human nature,” and “authoritarianism.” All the while blaming Russians for Amerika’s racism, praising the democratic establishment, and defending the first gulf war. We hung up after he conceded on the gulf war.

I don’t think their is a single family member of mine (other than like, my cousin) that doesn’t deserve the wall.

I really like balls

“I did not have sexual… relations … with that woman.” ?? I honestly have no frickin clue.

Their position is almost similar to the social democracies. Many Nordic countries were under the threat of revolution during the time of the USSR, so the ruling class(es) set up concessions to appease and prevent a full-out revolution by the working classes.

Cuba and Vietnam are still being run by people’s parties, but they are appeasing the national bourgeoisie and international bourgeoisie for economic development in productive forces, consumer goods, not being harassed by neoliberalism as much, etc. I am under the impression that most of the “capitalism” allowed is petit bourgeois style – there is capital owned and worked by the same people. The important thing, however, is that the government is actually democratic centralist or whatever…

(verb) to ally: combine or unite with (another) for mutual benefit.

“temporary ally” and “left unity” are obviously not synonymous, but it would be disingenuous to ignore any overlap

second paragraph

To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie […] and to renounce in advance any change of tack, […], or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme?

The Black Panther Party in America, for example, had many anarchist comrades within it, a “rainbow coalition,” and so on… For COINTELPRO, however, it is known that Feds have used ultra-left newspapers and anti-AES-focused stories in anarchist papers for psy-ops. Feds mainly targeted the leaders and most outspoken members of the Black Panthers (mostly ML or ML oriented), and many major past members that remain alive are anarchists. Take that as you will.

also, I have an account on both Lemmygrad and Hexbear. All this infighting is making me

true dat. Trot is definitely not an ultra left, and you are correct on his opportunism fluctuating on whatever would oppose Stalin – to the point of supporting terrorism

Also centrist, not too far left ( ) and not too far right ( ) , just in the moderate centre ( )

“I grew up in a liberal (in the American sense) family, and I identify now as a socialist, though a lot of the liberalism I grew up in has stuck with me”

to

“The GOP is directly inspired by the homophobic attitudes in both countries [Russia and China]. Have you been living under a rock?”

in the course of a few hours. "ummm actually Americans are homophobic because of foreigners sweety, and I care about LGBTQ+ rights more than you"

“here is why it is China’s fault for Amerika being rascist”

Sources: LE FUCKIN ECONOMIST – “journal that speaks for British billionaires.” It’s just more anti-China absurd nonsense. AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AT MY BAIDU LINK WHICH IS LITERALLY WRITTEN BY A PERSON LIVING IN CHINA. It summarizes things nicely, and you could just translate it.

do some more digging than just wiki.

the sources that wiki links for its claims are: " #37Archive from Resource Information Center Washington D.C in 1998. Their claim of punishment for sodomy and homosexual relationships being 5 years of hard labor was States News Service 28 May 1991; The San Francisco Chronicle 18 Oct. 1992. I found the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article, but it was paywalled, so I will have to see if my local library has it, or if I can get access to it.

Then the book “Hidden from history: reclaiming the gay and lesbian past” from pages 347-364 “Russia’s gay literature and culture :the impact of the October revolution” by Simon Karlinsky – gay scholar of Russian literature at Berkley. He often contends that the “Marxist Leninist ideology is at odds with homosexuality.” Why does he contend that? Good question. He says the ideology goes against homosexuality. Which is weird, because he isn’t arguing about real world socialism, but the ideology, which is synthesized from many socialist authors/works/theories but isn’t inheritly anti-homosexual

The actual wiki states " there were several high-profile arrests of Russian men accused of being pederasts. In 1933, 130 men “were accused of being ‘pederasts’ – adult males who have sex with boys. Since no records of men having sex with boys at that time are available, it is possible this term was used broadly and crudely to label homosexuality”

And I am getting a 404 to the 43rd resource

The book “Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent” by Dan Healy is referenced a lot. He actually is pro lenin, (and trotsky?), but very anti-Stalin, and uses a lot of primary sources/narratives about sexuality in the USSR.

" “In the first criminal code they composed after the revolution (1922), the Bolsheviks decriminalized sodomy. They did so because they were intent on secularizing and medicalizing the language of sexual crime. Old Testament concepts like “sodomy,” “fornication,” and “feminine honor” were purged from the law. In their place came a modernized, gender-neutral language to describe a sexual revolution. Henceforth, the sexual inviolability of all young persons was to be protected by the state, and the maximum self-determination was offered to both adult men and women: freedom to marry and divorce without having to explain why, freedom to engage in harmless consensual sexual relations without the interference of a moralizing higher authority. Homosexual relations were not explicitly welcomed by the Bolsheviks and raised to an equal status with heterosexuality. Yet they were regarded in principle as no great vice. The majority of Bolsheviks perhaps subscribed to the view that homosexuality was a medical condition, probably (if they read the popular sex advice tracts that they sponsored) a hormonal anomaly, and perhaps one day science would be able to control or even eradicate it. In the meantime, the legal persecution of homosexuals found in Britain and Germany was seen as irrational, reactionary, and bourgeois.” — Daniel D Hailey

and from the wiki ITSELF!!

“Soviet legislation does not recognise so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest (emphasis mine, because that is literally what I was fucking saying)”

—Sereisky, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593

DO YOU NOT READ? Even from le ant-commie wiki. 5 short paragraphs are all for “Stalin era”

and again, this is in THE FUCKING 1930s. THE BASTION OF “LIBERAL DEMOCRACY” IN AMERIKKKA IS LYNCHING BLACK PEOPLE

Also, the thing about Cuba is again, a myth. I am not going into that. But you can’t use WIKI AS A SOURCE. They are a compilation of sources. Can give a good run-down on things. Generally bad for political stuff. And there is a lot more shit I wanna say but I have to go to work very soon.

ALSO YOUR FUCKING NONSENSE ABOUT THE DDR IS STRAIGHT-UP INCORRECT. LIKE ACTUALLY STUPID. LIKE THE MOST STUPID THING I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY. AFTER HEARING THAT, I AM ENDING THIS CONVERSATION.

I am going to touch le grass. not bother replying to Kautsky

“inspired by Russia and even China”

dawg what.

https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2019_08_21_514563.shtml

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-lgbt-un/china-urged-to-take-action-on-lgbt-rights-after-backing-u-n-changes-idUSKCN1QO1MU

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%80%A7%E5%B0%91%E6%95%B0%E7%BE%A4%E4%BD%93/19500488

https://issuu.com/undp-china/docs/undp-ch-legal_gender_recognition_-_

Homosexuality in China and Does China Ban the LGBT movement?

China has trans healthcare. You can find LGBTQ stuff on Bilibili or Baidu. China has a three-no policy. No approval. No disapproval. No promotion. As for you – no investigation, no right to speak.

As for Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc goes…

Article 121 (the “anti-gay law” passed by the head soviet) was designed as an anti-pederasty law. If you look at the law text,it mentions or at least implies pedophilia.

To quote The Sangha kommune:

“Article 121, despite its curious reading, appears to have been designed to protect Soviet society from the menace of child abuse and paedophilia, although it is recorded that Soviet academia was interested in the practice of homosexuality from a medical perspective, and attempting to ascertain its root cause (with a number of early Soviet researchers following the Czarist assumption of aberration). This did not mean that homosexuals were persecuted – far from it – the general underlying trend in the USSR was to end all oppression, and facilitate the integration of the individual into the collective.”

https://thesanghakommune.org/2016/12/28/the-ussr-and-homosexuality-article-21/ There’s no objective, verifiable evidence of a persecution of homosexuals in the USSR

To quote Sangha Kommune again:

Research By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD

"The fact that the Soviet Union was considered enlightened and tolerant demonstrates that these laws were not applied as a deliberate attack upon homosexuals – although in the 1930’s, certain homosexual activity became associated with specific counter-revolutionary activity. In this regard, homosexuals who strove to bring-down the USSR were treated as ‘criminals’ – just as their heterosexual colleagues. Soviet records demonstrate that Joseph Stalin… was responding to various police reports about contemporary counter-revolutionary activities (usually within major cities). "

"Modern (capitalist) Russia has now imported much of the anti-Soviet Cold War disinformation fabricated by the US (and her allies) between 1945 – 1991. As a result, many modern Russian authors side with the reactionary forces of capitalism and adopt this pseudo-history as their own (apparently not realising its ‘racist’ anti-Slavic nature). The above article is anti-Soviet and is designed to give the impression that the USSR carried-out a continued pogrom against homosexuals – even though its author continuously states that there is no evidence to support his claims. Indeed, the only evidence the author can muster is ‘Western’ Cold War authors whose work – as pieces of official fiction – contain no Russian language sources. However, I have quoted this piece where I have been able to verify the facts within Russian language sources. It remains informative on two counts, 1) as a narrative history of homosexuality in Russia from early times to present, and 2) as a study of modern (Russian) anti-Soviet literature. I have found no objective, verifiable evidence of a deliberate persecution of homosexuals in the USSR. "

https://thesanghakommune.org/2017/01/05/the-ussr-and-homosexuality-part-iii-rsfsr-article-154a/

LGBTQ+ being put into camps in Cuba is also straight-up an anti-communist myth.

To say that “It was in liberal democracies where LGBTQ people first gained rights and have the strongest rights.” is ridiculous. AES countries had LGBTQ+ rights first and continued progressing, The DDR was fairly progressive in the 1980s and continued to progress – similar to the USSR and Eastern Bloc, however, I discussed the famous article 121 above how ""homosexuality was recriminalized. Meanwhile, during the Red Scare in Amerika, gays were specifically investigated because they were seen as more likely to be communists. In many parts of the West, it took until the late 20th and early 21st centuries for the advancement of rights for the LGBTQ+ community.

You can check out the new Cuba family code. It was heavily discussed and amended at the lower councils and then passed through to the national level. Also, Fidel did have some conservative beliefs regarding gay people in the past, but he later took back what he said and supported LGBTQ+. The DDR was also wildly progressive on the gender, sexuality, and feminist front. I have heard that the DPRK is slightly culturally conservative in the aspect that public displays of affection are generally frowned upon, but LGBTQ+ are not persecuted, but neither outright celebrated. Similar position to China and Vietnam.

The takeaway for LGBTQ+ rights is not corporate sponsors, pride parades, and consumption – but if they are free to be themselves. Are they committing sewerslide in droves? Being targeted by death squads? In many parts of the West, many of their rights are being rolled back or threatened, especially in Amerika. Not all AES support for LGBTQ+ community is perfect, but that would be due to the limiting factor of traditional, conservative views held by the majority population – not socialism.

It’s kind of a joke how liberals say “they are socially progressive but fiscally conservative,” while the whole definition of liberalism in the Amerikan States is messed up.

But it’s also not a joke in the sense that there are two wolves inside me: le puritan Leninist that is primarily concerned with (redacted) and people’s war. and bisexual femboy

fiscally Marxist-Leninist (le ebil tankie)

socially anarchist