Here's something I've definitely changed my opinion on in the last few months. Stalin's reign was, socially speaking, a move to the right. Stalin undid progressive moves towards social rights, such as homosexual liberation and women's liberation as well. The Soviet Union saw massive gains for women that were unheard of not only in Czarist Russia, but also in industrialized Europe. However, the context of the opinion does not necessarily justify it. In National Socialist Germany, the persecution of communists, Jews and many others was seen as 'acceptable.' In pre-Civil War United States, the shackling of Africans was seen as 'acceptable.' Currently in many Islamic countries, persecution, abuse and the veiling of women is seen as 'justified.' Does that make these things right because of the historical context or the current acceptance of these things by the majority of people? Of course not.

The same goes for Stalin's reactionary moves to the right in social perspective. He outlawed abortion and homosexuality. Despite the fact that in historical context, this may have been seen as justified, it is up to as as historical materialists and analysts to see the differing social forces that drive society and to realize that despite historical context, it was backwards for Stalin to make moves to restrict sexual liberation on different fronts. Historical context does not justify social wrongdoings by any means.

On the subject of abortion, the regime banned it mainly for the same reasons that China implemented the one-child policy: population control. On this issue for the regime, social conservatism be damned.

The difference between the homophobia of Marx and of Stalin is that Stalin used state power to repress and actively discriminate against homosexuals.

Don't oversimplify, please.

The Stalin's signed the sodomy laws having received a memo by Yegoda during the purges of 1933.

The law was actively used on the Moscow trials, the army purges or, for instance, to remove Yezhov.

Of course it wasn't about actual homosexuals.

I agree the historical context is actually largely irrelevant.
But because of his homophobia would you also neglect to recognise his work behind the greatest social leap forward in humanity?
I agree it shouldnt have happened those repressive homophobic laws but in the material context he was enormously progressive.

What?
So you think homophobic reactionaryism at the time was irrelevant in Stalins decesion?

And they predated Lenin, but Stalin RE-outlawed it. What was his excuse? Obviously he just wasn't as socially "evolved" as previous revolutionaries, or had ulterior motives which would probably be considered even worse (i.e. stripping rights of political enemies)

Either of the above is a possibility.
But I fail to see your point?

So its okay to discuss the 'good' policies but not the retreat and abandonment of these?

There are two major problems with this statement. The first is that its factually incorrect - the solid core of the Bolshevik party had always been the militant segments of the proletariat. Perhaps slightly less so at the very beginning of 1917 (when the experienced worker cadres had been broken up by the war) but this was quickly reasserted within months of the February Revolution. To characterise the entire party by its leadership is completely misleading and erroneous

Secondly, what sort of excuse is that? You believe that the Bolsheviks' progressive line in 1917 (it was far more than merely Lenin's opinion) was invalid/unsuited/unsustainable because it contradicted traditional prejudices? Perhaps you similarly consider Lenin a fool for speaking/acting out against pogroms? That the workers (which you assume were the source of such prejudices) flocked to the Bolsheviks despite such policies demonstrates that they found such progressive lines either attractive or of little importance

What is far more likely, with regards Russian sentiment, is that the moves to outlaw homosexuality and divorce rejected not working class attitudes but the traditional prejudices of the peasantry (from which Stalin had himself emerged). This goes hand in hand with the degeneration of the party itself and the rise in bureaucratic, national bolshevik, peasant, etc, members who had little time for revolutionary policies

By the 1930s any real democratic processes/structures within the Soviet state (or CPSU) were effectively dead. It was not quite the one man show that it would become just a few years later but it is safe to say that the average worker had minimal input into government decisions

This is tiring.

First thing, you mixed "surprising" with "good". Odd since these two words look nothing alike.
Secondly, anyone expecting LGBT rights to be realised by a revolution of the early 20th century and everyone to fully embrace these more-than-progressive for that time measures seems to be delusional beyond any chance of help. Anyone considering them a cornerstone for a revolution of that time to be called progressive and overlook other "only slightly" more important matters, like the transformation of the economy, can start naming themselves a champion of gay rights (before even gay people started championing their own rights, such is the flame that burns in that man's heart) but please, stop making a mockery of communism.

Examples of Marx and Engels acting in a "racist" or "homophobic" manner do exist and many are certainly aware but no one is interested in attacking them as sexists or white supremasists. Were they to do such an obviously and painfully naive act, they would lose whatever credibility they may have.
This thread, this "subject" and numerous others just like it are the best "political" arguements people can present to support their version of history. "One man show", "Tyranny", any accusation, relevant or not, reasonable or not, just to prove the devil himself took power and destroyed a revolution that would be doing just fine if the opressors were allowed more freedom.


To run ahead of some overjoyed smart guy, no, gay people weren't the opressors.

So what distinction are you making between the two then? Why is it okay to discuss the liberating laws and not the reactionary ones? Because the former were "surprising" while the latter represented the reassertion of traditional prejudices?

Except for the small matter that they were realised. The October Revolution established a set of laws which, while perhaps falling short of what we might expect today, were hugely progressive for their day. This happened and cannot be swept under the rug. What the OP was asking, and what people are largely condemning,

I've already dealt with your assertion that the Russian workers were somehow unready for these measures. I make no apologies for you finding my reasoning somehow tiring but if you cannot respond to them (instead of blabbling on about Marx, "tyranny", or other red herrings) then don't bother posting

I'm sure that people would be more understanding (probably mistakenly) if the October Revolution had not heralded in such a radically progressive social programme. Then it would be more acceptable to talk about the social challenges, blah blah blah, but such an argument makes no sense when such a progressive regime had already existed for a decade

I say mistaken above because anyone who believes that social freedom or reforms can be divorced (no pun intended) from revolutionary measures in the economic or political spheres is peddling a very un-Marxist line. But then I suspect that your reference to the economy was simply another disingenuous tangent intended to distract attention

They obviously weren't realised since the laws were reversed in such a short time.
And yes, discussing about something that merely "reasserts" what was common in that country and pretty much everywhere else in the world seems a bit pointless. Kinda like the "dog bites man" story.
Even more pointless when 90% of those involved don't want to challenge Stalin as a homophobe -quite a shocker if he was- but Soviet Union as a worker's state. At least start with something actually important, give a little credit to your opinions.

A passage from Homosexualism: A history of the question by Yuri Fyodorov. Pardon the horrendous translation by google language tools.

The Initiative to repeal anti-gay legislation after the February revolution came from to the Cadets and the anarchists. But the Bolsheviks, not unlike the European left, associated same gender relations with bourgeois decadance and were arrogantly convinced that with the victory of the proletariat in the revolution all sexual perversions (female prostitution included) would disappear by themselves. Nevertheless, after the October revolution in line with with the abolition of the old of the Penal Code the relevant articles were automatically invalidated. In the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922 and 1926 homosexuality as a crime is not mentioned (in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Georgia the relevant laws remained).

However, the formal decriminalization of sodomy does not mean the cessation of prosecutions of homosexuals under the pretense of combating "indecency" and corruption of minors. Thus, in the autumn of 1922, after the publication of a new penal code, held in Petrograd loud the trial of the sailors who gathered in a private apartment, where engaged with each other filthy sexual acts in the nude "(those arrested were aged 22 -- 45 years, ie, adult). As an expert for the prosecution was VM Bechterev. All the defendants were dismissed from the Navy and convicted. (Except for one thing, speaking as a witness, and that probably was an informant of the GPU.) Later, in another case, the prosecution suffered lesbian couple, one of which was illegally changed her name to "Eugenia" in the "Eugene", wore men's clothes , and they refused to submit the request to terminate his actual marriage. Condemned both.

The official position of Soviet medicine and law in the 1920-ies. came to the fact that homosexuality - not a crime, but hard to cure or even a not a curable disease: Understanding the irregularity of the homosexual society imposes, and can not lay the blame for her support of these features. <...> Emphasizing the importance of the sources from which this anomaly is growing, our society is a number of preventive and curative measures creates all necessary conditions to ensure that vital clash homosexuals may have been painless and that the alienation inherent in them, dissolved in a new collective "(16) .
In September 1933 in Moscow and St. Petersburg has been a major raid on persons with different sexual orientations, which resulted in the arrest of 130 people. Stalin in a memo to then-deputy chairman of the OGPU Henry Yagoda reported disclosure in Moscow and Leningrad of several groups who were engaged in "establishing a network of shops, homes, brothels, groups and other organized groups homosexuals with the further transformation of these associations in a straight spy cells".

That makes no sense. LGBT rights did not exist because they were rolled back a decade later? Did the October Revolution establish an extremely progressive legal framework with regards homosexuality and divorce or did it not?

And if we accept that the post-October laws were progressive then their abolishment, in favour of more conservative attitudes, was by definition a backwards or reactionary step. This is true regardless of attitudes at the time* and it is the issue that you've been attempting to dance around

Frankly your entire argument seems to boil down to "Yes, Stalin (or the party or whoever) abolished the divorce, abortion, and homosexual rights but that's okay because Russia was a backwards shithole anyway". Although I do love the irony of then going on to proclaim this to be a "workers' state"!

*Incidentally you've provided nothing to suggest that these prejudices were particularly rampant (instead relying on the assumption that workers, or the "lower strata of society", were simply bigoted) or that there was any popular movement to revoke these laws

Are you suggesting that a supposedly "workers' state" should be expected to conform to the standards set by contemporary bourgeois regimes? If so it sort've defeats the entire point of revolutionary socialism

First, a bit of international power natalist policy - needing a huge army to counter foreign aggression, things such as abortions, contraception, or homosexuality look counterproductive.

Second, as Zizek points out, a discretionary regime prefers to forbid everything, and then administer mercy at its will. Or call it blackmail if you prefer.

Third, homophobia was the rule at the time. It would take revolutionaries to confront it, Stalin was no revolutionary.

Luís Henrique

Actually, on this one subject it's ironic that Bernstein was a revolutionary!

Anyway, the second point of yours is nothing less than eye-popping.

Yes but Lenin has proved himself to be far more open minded and forward thinking revolutionary than J Stalin. After all, there wouldnt even have been a soviet union if it wasnt for Lenin.

Indeed, so one has to ask do some people here think that a socialist state should not have a policy towards population growth?
Or do they think the policy was the wrong one?
Should it have aimed to restrict population growth as the Chinese did from the 70s?

was not Berstein the marxist who was most progressive on this in the pre WW2 period. No correlation with being revolutionary at all.

Tell me this, if there was a revolution which failed to recongise the rights of the gay community, would you as a revolutionary, not confront this?