Re: MAL: Re: Sex: What do communists stand for?

[hariette@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hariette spierings)]

>At 11:36 AM 4/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>How cretinous (and, as US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out
>>- proudly! - the other day, cretin comes from the French word for
>>Christian; Scalia's point was that religious people who believe in miracles
>>[like him] must be willing to take the barbs of secular intellectuals, and
>>be a fool for Christ; here we have fools for Stalin). Imperialism? Fascism?
>>Who said anything about no regard about the other person involved in a
>>fuck? Last time I checked, lots of people enjoyed fucking, in twos, threes,
>>and more - lots of them women even! Sometimes even women fucking other
>>women and with both (or more) of them enjoying it. How much your average
>>Stalinist seems to have in common with your average Bible-thumper!
>>
>>Doug

>Not this particular Stalinist or close-to-it. I am in disagreement with
>Adolfo and Gina on this issue. I think that there is nothing inherently
>exploitative about sex, and nothing wrong with enjoying sex. I greatly enjoy
>sex and understand not why I as a woman would be expected not to enjoy it.
>It's fun and loving and a whole lot of other wonderful things. I have always
>felt respected by men with whom I have engaged in sexual relations. This
>being nothing against gays and lesbians, I simply happen to be heterosexual.
>There is nothing wrong with liking and desiring sex with whomever one
>pleases, or more than one whomever. There is nothing anti-revolutionary,
>imperialist, or fascist about pleasure and desire. I have great respect for
>both Adolfo and Gina, but on this issue I must disagree. Comradely, charlotte
>>


And who is saying that you cannot enjoy sex, Charlotte?.  Just do not make
getting laid a condition of your participation in the revolution - that is
exploitative, whatever you may say.  In any case, I don't know where have
you gotten the impression that I think sex is a bad thing.

No, what we are against is the vile practice of considering the revolution
as a means - a recruiting ground and an excuse - to get laid!  People come
to the revolution because they are willing to fight exploitation and
oppression, not because they are horny and can't get it otherwise.

The allegations of the Caligulas of this list have nothing to do with sex,
they are just smoke screens geared to smearing the revolution and the
revolutionaries as "party poopers" and "ascetics".

That is why, they - the great "Leninists" - question Lenin's point of view
and call it "outdated" while themselves offering the views of the Roman
slave owners as the epitome of "modern social conditions".  (Have you
noticed how these "great Leninists" praise Lenin to the skies, but disagree
with EVERY concrete position of Lenin's, always saying: "on that Lenin is
outdated", or, "Lenin had two different positions on that question", or
"Lenin did not know", "he was not aware", etc. etc. etc.)

It is not their sex life - the poor dears hardly have any at all beyond
their ghastly salivations in public - it is their use of sex as a weapon to
insult revolutionaries, what characterises their line.

Stalin was not a sex starved person of any sorts, and these gentlemen are
the same people who accusse - in the same breath they call us "pruddish" -
Chairman Mao of seducing young party women by the bedful.

You see, thieves always think everyone else is a thief just like them.  They
feel they are missing out if their "revolution" would not give them what
they consider others have in more abundance than themselves - the love and
respect of the masses - and of course they see that if they - for a fluke of
destiny - had such love and respect bestowed upon their unworthy selves, oh
wow! - imagine, all the militants as fair game for the leaders
ministrations, what an incredible fantasy!. And that is what it always turns
out to be, their empty erotic fantasy about "revolutionary power".

Is there any wonder that such people miss out altogether on this since it is
obvious to anyone that comes into real contact with them that all their
"liberation talk" amounts to predatory self-satisfaction?

Communists, and I have know a few in my life, do not go round wearing their
sexuality on their sleeves - and even less, saying, "I only take part in the
revolution if am I going to get laid"!  "Otherwise, stuff it"!   That is the
attitude we are criticising.

Here in England there is an old saying among the working people:  Blues
(Tories) are good but hypocritical shafters (fuckers), the reds (communists)
are good and discreet ones too, but those bloody pinkos (labourites, social
democrat and "leftists" like Carlos, McLleland, and Mcleeme) are as lousy
lays as they are big talkers!   There is a great deal of truth in this, and
that is partly why we always tease them as "eunuchs" - they know well what
we are referring to is not only to their decades long and fully demonstrated
impotence vis a vis the revolution!


Adolfo Olaechea






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---