spotlessd posted:

You're so incredibly full of poo poo starting with the first sentence of your post. You're just a liberal. Come to terms with that now so we can move on to correcting this idiotic strawman. Oh heavens I was gonna be a leftist but now I'm not so sure! Please. Unless you're a graduate of the OwlFancier Academy of Uh Let's Just Call It Idiosyncratic Marxism you don't have a loving clue what you're even disagreeing with. You would if you read my posts but you blatantly didn't.

BigRed0427 posted:

I blame capitalism.

spotlessd posted:

You're so incredibly full of poo poo starting with the first sentence of your post. You're just a liberal. Come to terms with that now so we can move on to correcting this idiotic strawman. Oh heavens I was gonna be a leftist but now I'm not so sure! Please. Unless you're a graduate of the OwlFancier Academy of Uh Let's Just Call It Idiosyncratic Marxism you don't have a loving clue what you're even disagreeing with. You would if you read my posts but you blatantly didn't.

spotlessd posted:

You're so incredibly full of poo poo starting with the first sentence of your post. You're just a liberal. Come to terms with that now so we can move on to correcting this idiotic strawman. Oh heavens I was gonna be a leftist but now I'm not so sure! Please. Unless you're a graduate of the OwlFancier Academy of Uh Let's Just Call It Idiosyncratic Marxism you don't have a loving clue what you're even disagreeing with. You would if you read my posts but you blatantly didn't.

Cythereal posted:

Please take your threadshitting somewhere else.

spotlessd posted:

You're so incredibly full of poo poo starting with the first sentence of your post. You're just a liberal. Come to terms with that now so we can move on to correcting this idiotic strawman. Oh heavens I was gonna be a leftist but now I'm not so sure! Please. Unless you're a graduate of the OwlFancier Academy of Uh Let's Just Call It Idiosyncratic Marxism you don't have a loving clue what you're even disagreeing with. You would if you read my posts but you blatantly didn't.

Marlene Dixon posted:

The most destructive consequence of the left-wing sexism has been to drive women and homosexuals into “sexual politics.” Women’s Liberation itself and, later, lesbian vanguardism were consequences of denying women any legitimate place, as women, in the socialist left. People were thus forced back into a fight for their social equality and limited to a fight against their social oppression. Women were forced to fight the left even as they were forced to fight the capitalist society as a whole. The consequence of left-wing anti-feminism was in this way profoundly reactionary, contributing to the rise of reformist and even fascist social movements. The left was in error, for so subjective and self-interested was the anti-feminist attack that class analysis or a class perspective was never addressed to the women’s movement. In time, women themselves undertook to engage in a Marxist analysis of themselves, but only after having spent years of confusion engendered by the self-interested sexism of petty bourgeois male chauvinists in the left.

The predominance of “sexual politics” among homosexuals can be explained in the same way as the prevalence of “sexual politics” in the women’s movement – a response to the left’s definition of a “whole human creature” by but one (socially defined as negative) aspect of human existence: sex or sexuality. The distaste of heterosexual male leftists for any discussion of sexuality is, in fact, a distaste for any discussion of their objective supremacy, of their oppressor roles, of the direct benefit they personally enjoy from the subjugation of women.

unwantedplatypus posted:

I like socialism but I also like equal rights what does that make me?

spotlessd posted:

Guavanaut posted:

Good post

I liked Huey Newton's thoughts on linking together different movements while still challenging counterrevolutionary and socially poisonous thought, which other later movements could probably learn from.

Red Butterfly's trans-exclusiveness seems to be based entirely on a limited reading of philosophical materialism, applying a deliberately limited and socially-directed definition of 'man' and 'woman' to a similar definition of 'sex'. Perhaps understandable for the time, but pretty confusing as to what it implies for 'real' cisgender men and women; do they mean chromosomal, or tied to ability for reproduction? Either could end up with some very strange implications.

Baka-nin posted:

To be perfectly honest, I think most of the time when a leftist group has this issue they basically work backwards. They're mainly using theory to cover for their own prejudices. Red Butterfly was formed shortly after stonewall and so its members took their own cultural baggage into it. It's like the "class based" analysis that anti Gay leftists use. If you actually read what they say it's mostly just a moral objection cloaked in the usual jargon.

PT6A posted:

Any ideologue will instinctively twist their ideology to support whatever they already believe. The ideology cannot have flaws; ergo if they are perfectly followers of the ideology (which, of course, they believe they are), anything they like is supported by the ideology, and anything they dislike is anathema to the ideology.

iospace posted:

Or, in other words, "Conservatism can't fail, it can only be failed"?

Samovar posted:

Maybe it's because of the leftists I hang out with (and I admit, I am saying this from a middle-class, white, straight, male background) but I have always associated leftist movements as granting rights deprived to LGBT peoples, and not claiming they were a distraction. Also, they were a general mix of sexes, genders as well as straight and LGBT.

In fact, I would say the only time I ever met a leftist who yelled about gay marriage being unimportant were A) self-declared and B) online.

I somehow am inclined to doubt that they are being sincere. In the slightest.

Oh yeah, by their writing, I'm guessing spotless was a re-reg of that one guy who had the avatar of the North Korean propaganda smashing 'degenerate' social ideas and who was repeatedly owned by Majorian on C-SPAM, who was also much more funny.

OwlFancier posted:

Leftism often correlates with social liberalism but not always, economic leftists can still be very authoritarian and very regressive on social issues.

Samovar posted:

I won't deny that, it just seems (sorry for the subjectivity) that those people make noise vastly disproportionate to their numbers.

And that they are also self-declared.

the moose posted:

So what does lgbt rights have to do with Marxist Revolution? Like I'm pretty sure you can have full lgbt rights within capitalism. It just seems kind of odd to force economic system stuff into lgbt rights.

Like sure quiltbags need jobs and capitalism is toxic but overthrowing the bourgeoisie as the only way to do it seems abit excessive.

Cythereal posted:

Not strange at all and millennials will most likely drift further into establishment voting blocs as they get older like the generations before them. Right now a lot of millennials are still naive enough to think an outside can change how the country is run, or so disillusioned they don't vote.

the moose posted:

So what does lgbt rights have to do with Marxist Revolution? Like I'm pretty sure you can have full lgbt rights within capitalism. It just seems kind of odd to force economic system stuff into lgbt rights.

Like sure quiltbags need jobs and capitalism is toxic but overthrowing the bourgeoisie as the only way to do it seems abit excessive.

OwlFancier posted:

Not everybody does, however, because some people read "no war but class war" as an exhortation to ignore everything except economic issues.

Guavanaut posted:

(A lot of gay lib started in anarchist circles, which is not to say that all schools of anarchism are good about this, but most Marxists around the same time were openly hostile, which is why the discussion originated that way.)

A Pale Horse posted:

In the past year or so I've come to realize that the whole left-right divide is really secondhand in a lot of ways, what really matters is authoritarianism vs liberty and as much as horseshoe theory is derided by people I think it holds true in a lot of ways. Both the extreme left (communists) and the extreme right (fascists) are authoritarian as hell because the only way to get humans to comply with systems that are against human nature is through force. Those systems are necessarily coercive and violent and end in mass murder as well as limiting freedom for large segments of the population and somehow we LGBT always end up in the corsshairs, either for being decadent bougie hedonists or weak degenerate corruptors of youth depending on which extreme is holding the rifles. Being liberal is not popular here, I know, but I'm proud to say I'm a liberal. Liberalism is the only system interested in promoting personal freedom above a collective good and as such the only system that can benefit a minority like us. Without liberalism none of the progress that's been made in the last 40 years would have been possible so even if its a lovely system, and I concede it is in a lot of ways, for gay people it's still absolutely the best system around and I have trouble understanding gay people who rail against it either from the left or the right.

A Pale Horse posted:

In the past year or so I've come to realize that the whole left-right divide is really secondhand in a lot of ways, what really matters is authoritarianism vs liberty and as much as horseshoe theory is derided by people I think it holds true in a lot of ways. Both the extreme left (communists) and the extreme right (fascists) are authoritarian as hell because the only way to get humans to comply with systems that are against human nature is through force. Those systems are necessarily coercive and violent and end in mass murder as well as limiting freedom for large segments of the population and somehow we LGBT always end up in the corsshairs, either for being decadent bougie hedonists or weak degenerate corruptors of youth depending on which extreme is holding the rifles. Being liberal is not popular here, I know, but I'm proud to say I'm a liberal. Liberalism is the only system interested in promoting personal freedom above a collective good and as such the only system that can benefit a minority like us. Without liberalism none of the progress that's been made in the last 40 years would have been possible so even if its a lovely system, and I concede it is in a lot of ways, for gay people it's still absolutely the best system around and I have trouble understanding gay people who rail against it either from the left or the right.

Guavanaut posted:

Anarchists were promoting gay rights back when Liberals were still complaining about pride rallies blocking their commute, and to state that you don't really care about the economic axis implies strongly that you can afford not to. Not every LGB person can afford that luxury, and proportionally a lot more trans people face material hardship.

Liberty is important, but historically Liberalism has only been the best path to liberty for those well placed to take advantage of it. I will concede that Liberal thought was the germ that brought a lot of later libertarian-socialist ideas into existence, but the Liberals themselves were often only concerned about applying it to those at the top of the ladder. The freedom of the free was the cause of the great oppression of the slaves, as the quote goes.

Guavanaut posted:

Anarchists were promoting gay rights back when Liberals were still complaining about pride rallies blocking their commute, and to state that you don't really care about the economic axis implies strongly that you can afford not to. Not every LGB person can afford that luxury, and proportionally a lot more trans people face material hardship.

Liberty is important, but historically Liberalism has only been the best path to liberty for those well placed to take advantage of it. I will concede that Liberal thought was the germ that brought a lot of later libertarian-socialist ideas into existence, but the Liberals themselves were often only concerned about applying it to those at the top of the ladder. The freedom of the free was the cause of the great oppression of the slaves, as the quote goes.