Re: Sex not sexuality was: Lenin on sexual "excess"

[Jeffrey Booth <booth2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gary,
        I'm hurt that you didn't acknowledge my paraphrase of Emma
Goldman.
        Anyway, Gina and Lord Adolpho responded exactly as I thought they
would.  The Maoist individuals (groups would be an exagerration) that I've
run into actually print in their papers that abstinence is the truly
revoltionary practice; that sex is somehow an act of exploitation, etc... .
   It reminds me of *1984*:  "sexcrime" and all that.  I think it's worth
showing again and again what sick morons these maoists are.  If people
start to associate maoism with marxism:  we'll never have a revolution.

        It's also once again clear from this thread that Gina and Adolpho are:

                A)  Bourgeois or upper middle class.

                B)  Homophobic.

                C)  From another planet.

                D)  Complete shit-heads.

The list could continue.  If only I had the time to post on all the crap
they raise on this list but some of us have to work for a living.
        
                        For Socialism AND Sex,
                                                Jeff Booth

p.s.  Any maoists left in Australia?




On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Gary MacLennan wrote:

> Lord Olaechea, the Knight of the Shining Path and the Prince of the Prolix
> wrote this:-
> >
> >Many of the decayed bourgeois "orgiastics" in this list adduce that such a
> >Party will have no mass appeal.  That is because they see the proletariat
> >party as a "mass party" and not as the "Party OF the Masses" (in Leninist
> >terms).
> >
> >They are out - not to make revolution - but to win votes, and for that they
> >pander ever more to the lowest common denominator and the smuttiest wish
> >list of any juvenile delincuent or gross materialist entitled to a ballot in
> >bourgeois elections.
> >
> >A chicken in every pot, and turgid tits, steaming vaginas and spurting
> >penises for everyone's phantasies and sado-masochist "torture chambers"
> >seems to be their program.
> >
> >New Fascism - like quite a few expressions of the old (witness the orgiastic
> >nature of the Hitlerite brown shirts - the film The Damned - Luchino
> >Visconti - is a good expression of this tendency in fascism) also seems to
> >be seeking to mobilise masses under hedonistic banners worthy of
> Heliogabalus.
> >
> >Unfortunately, for these New Fascists, they will hardly be able to mobilise
> >such masses away from the flesh pots and the speakeasies in more than a
> >perfunctory fashion and only under the banners of "leave us alone to do as
> >we wish". The epitome of the "I am alright Jack" philosophy!
> >
> >How far from Lenin, how close to Caligula they have become!
>
>
> I know comrades have resorted to the delete button to protect themselves
> from the absolute tide of verbal diarrhoea that Lord Olaechea has fouled
> this list with, but I urge them as a matter of political interest to read
> carefully the above.
>
> This thread began as a challenge to the PCP to make its postion on gays
> clear.  This has now been partly satisfied.  However there is another aspect
> of this affair.  I have repeatedly challenged the Don to say wheter he would
> publicly condemn Stalin's criminalisation of homosexulaity.  He refuses to
> answer this.  His subsequent postings however reveal that he has very little
> understanding at all of the politics of sexuality.
> Indeed his tactics here were quite similar to when Comrade Proyect raised
> the question of Stalin's disastrous stupidity on fascism.  Don Adolfo simply
> repeated Stalin's crassness.  Stalin stigmatised homosexuals as fascist and
> decadent. Don Adolfo simply repeats Stalin's crassness.
>
> Ignorance is of course not always a matter for condemnation but when it is
> allied to the kind of aristocratic arrogance and crudity that Don Adolfo
> habitually displays then the results are execrable indeed.
>
> Let  me then try and inform  the revolutionary aristo and his homophobic
> henchman, Chatterjee.  Gay loberation can best be understood as part of the
> politics of recognition.  The central aim is really not about a licence to
> have any particular kind of sexual practice but rather to be recognised as
> human beings. It is about sexuality not sex.  It is about what kind of
> identity one can be permitted to have.  Of course one should note here that
> queer theory has attempted to challenge identity politics, but  such fine
> distinctions are obviuoulsy beyond this junker who can write about "steaming
> vaginas".
>
> I make no apology whatsoever for championing the cause of gay emancipation.
> I admit freely that I have not been as active in gay politics as I would
> have liked to have been over the years.  I chose however to put most of my
> efforts into traditional left politics.  Part of my rationale for this was a
> conviction that the cause of socialist revolution would automatically lead
> to the emancipation of gays and other oppressed groups.  I never ever
> thought that I would arrive in a forum like this when to raise the cause of
> gay emancipation would lead to the charge that one is an "orgiastic" or on
> about "spurting penises".
>
> But then I would never have thought that I would have been denounced as a
> "fascist" either.
>
> I would like to comment briefly on some other comrades who contributed to
> this thread.  I appreciated the comments by Louis Gondena.  I was also
> surprised.
>
> Comrade Anderesen took the homophobe Chatterjee to pieces with great
> analytical precision.  I enjoyed this greatly.
>
> Comrade Howard continues to argue his point of view with considerable skill.
> For his civilised and erudite contributions he has had to bear the vile
> comparisons with Caligula. He has my sympathy.  For these and all the other
> comrades who have defended the traditions of revolutionary tolerance and
> self emancipation of the oppressed, my sincere thanks.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---