Marxists and Gay liberation

[mir]

divisions within the working class exist and weaken the class struggle as a whole

Yet, you are the one that is trying to divide the working class by somehow attempting to form differences based on sexuality and gender.  What socialists truly want is to overthrow the capitalist system and we believe that will end discrimination and inequality.  Although we support women and gay rights, we do NOT believe that supporting these movements will in any way bring us closer to redistributing the means of production.  Unlike you, we do not wish to treat women or gays as seperate members of society, but rather as one.  We do NOT want seperate rights for women and gays, but instead we want EQUAL rights for ALL workers and peasants.

In fact I have pointed out clearly that it is only the socialist transformation of society which will lay the basis for the eradication of all forms of discrimination and prejudice

Than why do you support gay rights activist over the socialist movement?  Do you think gay rights activist wish to create socialism more than socialists?

We have to work to bring workers together across boundaries of sex, sexuality or race and that can only be done if we are serious about challenging discrimination and inequality. It isn't done by ignoring discrimination and oppression

You cannot bring workers together by dividing them up based on sexuality, sex, race, etc.  As countless other comrades have said before, socialism will get rid of discrimination and inequality, not the bourgeois laws which gays rights people are fighting for.  Gay rights activist have NOTHING in common with socialism except the desire to be treated equally as other people-but this is an empty goal for them unless they stop concentrating on merely the social side of discrimination, but also on the economic and political (which they are not).

Your support for petty liberal agendas and reforms will not help the working class one bit.  You are telling the working class that they are just one category of people fighting for socialism, along with gays and women.  No.  The working class (men, women, gays, everybody) are all equally fighting for socialism and socialism will end their oppression.  I make no distinction between the gay working class or the women working class as you do.

[Daymare17]

Okay, first of all I'd like to point out that the views of members of this forum are in no way guaranteed to reflect the official position of Socialist Appeal or marxist.com. For comrade Irish Militant to get an official reply he should send an official request through email.

The fact that the CWI is a considerably larger and more influential group than Socialist Appeal

Larger? Possibly. More influential? When hell freezes over. Just one word this time: Venezuela.

and its associates does not of course mean that we are right – but it should put Daymare’s hilarious foaming at the mouth about how we have it in for you into some kind of context. Really, comrades, if you can’t discuss your political positions calmly with someone who is in the greater scheme of things only a stones throw from you ideologically how on earth do you hope to win over the masses of the working class?

I reserve the right to call a scoundrel a scoundrel so long as I make my position clear at the same time.

What does seem to be in contention between us is how to build support for that goal. Marxists have to actively intervene into movements against discrimination, pointing those movements towards a class analysis and a socialist solution. To do that effectively we have to fight alongside women or gay people or any other group struggling against oppression and offer a socialist programme to take that movement forward. It is not enough to abstain from involvement, to refuse to fight for every gain, and to just say that after the revolution these problems can be dealt with.

Obviously, but the way the CWI goes about it is to refrain from introducing class splits into these movements and thus prevent the unity of the working class.

Daymare manages an even stranger line of argument when he/she quotes a couple of lines from a Socialist Party pamphlet and makes the ludicrous claim that there is “Not a single word about the struggles of the working class! Not a single call for class unity across borders of sexual preference!” I’m not sure if this is a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation or if it is just that Daymare didn’t bother to read the pamphlet before writing about it. In fact the pamphlet goes to great lengths to argue the need for working class unity and a socialist solution:

All right, I'm going to post more evidence from the SP website about your petty bourgeois position on this question.

Your first link, on the surface of it, seems to argue a socialist position on the lgbt question. Many quotes apparently support that conclusion, such as:

"This means that we need to link our struggles against discrimination to the battles facing working-class people as a whole. Direct action and lobbying are important means of highlighting issues and focussing pressure on individual MPs upon whose vote laws will change. But, they cannot substitute for taking our campaigns into the unions, workplaces and communities, showing how prejudice and discrimination prevent the unity we all need to combat the attacks on our living standards by the bosses and their government."

However, a number of points disrupts your whole argument as I shall show.

I'm going to take your program of "Lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender rights" point by point, rejecting some and approving others, and build a draft of a real Marxist position on this question.

"Equal rights for all."

Sounds good, so long as there are not any special rights that LBGT people need. For women there is maternity leave, for Moslems the right to pray. No matter how much I wrack my brain I can't think up any special rights that LBGT people need. But in case they do (we'll have to contact some gay/transgender people), "equal rights" is infact unequal rights.

"A united campaign to build mass action to scrap all antigay laws and to outlaw all forms of anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination and prejudice."

United campaign of whom? Under whose leadership? The pernicious role of this diffuseness we shall see later.

"Equalise the age of consent without exceptions - no backdoor, selective removal of the right for 16- to 18-year-olds to give consent."

It appears there's some kind of unofficial mood in the judiciary against equal age of consent for gays and straights. I do not know that much about this question, so can you specify if this is the case? If so, I completely agree on this point.

"Stop prosecutions for consenting sex between men of 16 and over - drop all charges, quash all convictions and remove the names from the Sex Offenders Register."

Entirely agreed. The mixing up of pedophilia and homosexuality is a truly disgusting feature of homophobia.

"For an all-embracing civil rights bill to outlaw all forms of discrimination."

I support this measure.

"For a national mass demonstration for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights, if possible, organised jointly by the gay and transgender communities and trade unions."

This is where the rot sets in. Who makes up these "communities"? The gay and transgender working class, petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Without exception the "community leaders" are petty bourgeois with petty bourgeois positions like "Buy Black" and so on. As I have said it is class collaboration not class warfare. Lenin was against this thing his whole life. The position of the CWI is pure opportunism and blurring of class differences. What about racism? If you were consistent you'd say that the black and muslim "community leaders" should work together with the trade unions to combat racism. Now look how "socialist" that is! Just an inch further to the right and you turn into the SWP!

"Support for civil disobedience and direct action as legitimate forms of protest."

What ever happened to the methods of the working class? Civil disobedience and direct action may well be "legitimate" form of protest but don't pose any threat to capitalism. What happened to strikes and mass demonstrations?

"Joint campaigns between the gay and transgender communities and trade unions to counter bigotry in local communities and workplaces."

Identity politics, identity politics. The proletarian position on LGBT must obviously be similar to the proletarian position on other historically specially oppressed sections such as women, blacks, Jews. Let's take the latter as an example. In Russia there was an organisation known as the Jewish Bund which reserved for itself the right to organise the Jewish workers (a position much closer to the socialist one than that of the petty bourgeois "community" leaders of today). Did Lenin call for joint campaigns between the Jewish "communities" (sic) and the labour movement? No, he didn't even call for joint action between the Jewish Bund and the rest of the labour movement. He said that in the interests of all workers the Jewish workers must unite with Russian workers under the same workers' leadership against capitalists of all nations. The Jewish bourgeoisie, Lenin had no less contempt for than for the Russian bourgeoisie. We should have the same contempt for the gay petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie today and disdain all attempts to cloak them under the deceptive label of "communities". I would also like you to counter my argument about Lenin's letter to Inessa Armand.

"Proscribe the 'gay panic' defence of provocation used to justify murders of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals."

Not too well versed on the particulars of this case but it sounds like a decent demand if it's another flaw in the judicial system.

"For equal parenting, fostering, adoption and fertility rights."

Absolutely agreed.

"No profiteering from HIV /Aids - public ownership of the drugs and medical supplies industry under democratic workers' control and management, including the involvement of people living with HIV/Aids."

Now that's what I call a socialist demand! Agreed 110%.

(continued)

[Daymare17]

That's the program. Here's a quote from the statement on that page:

"Through this means lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people will help unite the struggles of all oppressed sections into one struggle - to take power away from the rich and to give it to ordinary working-class people."

Again the fundamental class collaborationist position shines through. It's not about uniting "all oppressed sections", implying support for bourgeois minority groupings. It's about uniting all the sections of the proletariat against all the sections of the bourgeoisie. The opportunism of the CWI is made clear as day by this paragraph:

"But what will be the basis of this movement? Many different sections of society will identify with the need to change society. Yet only the working class, uniting with it other sections desiring radical change, has the collective strength required to achieve such a momentous transformation. Organised through their workplaces and communities, the working class represents the overwhelming majority in society. Working-class people may not, as yet, collectively own the factories and banks, but they can't run them without us." (my emphasis)

As we can see, the essence of the program of the SP LBGT group is uniting the working class with "other oppressed sections of society", including the class enemy, instead of the Marxist position: uniting the working class against the ruling class and proposing the necessary special demands for the proletariat's specially oppressed sections.

Irish Militant notes the class division of the LBGT communities but doesn't make the necessary conclusions for the program:

Importantly for Marxists, the gay “community” is itself as class divided as the rest of society and the experiences of gay people in working class communities, unsheltered by the so-called “pink pound” can be very different to those of wealthy gay people.

How can this be important for Marxists and still not play any part in your program? The fact is that the wealthier part of the "communities" are counter-revolutionary and anti-proletarian and we should fight them like we fight the plague.

These are important issues and it is necessary for Marxists to develop a programme to deal with them, to link them in to a wider working class struggle for socialism. Yet the Woods group has abjectly failed to even begin this work.

I agree, and I think it's a relatively important struggle (although i think the Venezuelan Revolution is more important - but that's arguable isn't it? ;)). At least we should produce one article that denounces class collaborationist identity politics and states a Marxist position on the LBGT question.

[nordicmarxist]

Well as marxists we should fight against all discrimination and take the time to understand how discrimination works.

We should also have something to say about this.

[Morag]

Irish Militant, you must have a very different country than mine if people can change laws without legislation. From the post Rune gave, let's look at some of the things you'll need to legislate:

"Equal rights for all." My entire post was about how this is impossible through legislation. How do you plan on creating equal rights for all, now, before the revolution, if you don't legislate it? It takes generations to accept even the most basic rights, and even then prejudices have this nasty habit of hiding.

"For an all-embracing civil rights bill to outlaw all forms of discrimination." Well, this clearly shows legislative need, which actually, if you agree that rights can't be legislated, might just prove Rune's point about opportunism.

"A united campaign to build mass action to scrap all antigay laws and to outlaw all forms of anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination and prejudice." More legislation.

"Equalise the age of consent without exceptions - no backdoor, selective removal of the right for 16- to 18-year-olds to give consent." More legislation.

"Stop prosecutions for consenting sex between men of 16 and over - drop all charges, quash all convictions and remove the names from the Sex Offenders Register." More legislation- though certainly worthy... how has the gay community not rebelled?

"Support for civil disobedience and direct action as legitimate forms of protest." Civil disobedience targetted at who? Legislators?

"For equal parenting, fostering, adoption and fertility rights." More legislation.

Now, without getting into my own opinions of these worthy measures, how can you say you don't encourage the legislation of rights if its right there in the platform?

I'm not sure what to say. Truthfully, yes, Marxists have a part to play in ending as much suffering here and now as possible. But there's a difference between helping to allieve suffering and actually thinking you've made progress. Gays and lesbians and transgendered people are full human beings under the law here in Canada (if you think that's an odd statement, women weren't even human until 1929 here) now that they can marry. They can do everything and anything they want (except divorce, but that's coming in September). And yet, people still heckle them walking down the street; we still have 'gay beatings'; parents still don't want their children to be gay. And on and on and on. That is not equality, but it doesn't seem to be far off from what the SP is pushing...

And maybe its just me, but, if your against the legislation of rights, then why are you telling us to look at a political parties website?! Its a political party. Political. They want to change the world, through legislation... But, then again, I too am a member of a political party. I guess when the gays and the lesbians, and the women, and the blacks, and the asians, and the disabled, and the aboriginals, and the children, and the animals and the dolphins have all be liberated, we might get round to liberating the working-class and overthrowing capitalism.

[commie_kg]

We don't put "gay liberation" ahead of working class liberation. Why? Because when the working class is liberated, the gay segments of the working class are liberated.

Try to remember that socialism's primary purpose is not social justice and fairness. It's liberation from wage slavery.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by commie_kg
We don't put "gay liberation" ahead of working class liberation. Why? Because when the working class is liberated, the gay segments of the working class are liberated.

This is sectarian, since you have to address all the special problems as well as the general problem. If you said this to some gay workers who were fighting against discrimination then you would cut yourself off from all contact with them. It's the same thing as with discrimination of women. You have to say "yes, I will help you against discrimination, but in my opinion you can only be helped out in the end by socialism"

Try to remember that socialism's primary purpose is not social justice and fairness. It's liberation from wage slavery.

Which is the same thing...

[ckaihatsu]

If a person was in a position to do nothing but freely participate in social-justice-oriented activities in the real world, every day, s/he would effectively be liberated from the stresses of wage slavery. It's a big "if", of course, and the person would still be in a larger capitalist world, but the economically liberated position would enable that person to (arguably) be a more effective revolutionary.









___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[kimberlysark]

Hi there ppl.

How do Socialist Appeal members propose breaking the hold of the petit-bourgeois leadership of the LGBT movement (or women's movement for that matter) without intervening in it? Or do you agree now, in theory at least, with intervening in it?

If you do now finally agree with intervening into the LGBT liberation movement then maybe as a first step you could do some research, hold some internal discussions, and draw up a transitional programme.

Just for the benefit of others on this board, the point of having a transitional programme aimed at the LGBT liberation movement is so that you can try and win the movement to a Marxist leadership. This would of course split the movement on class lines - the current petit-bourgeois leaders would leave it for sure (good - they are a barrier after all!).

By counter-posing a socialist programme for LGBT liberation - that is tactics for the immediate struggles - and a programme that links the struggle for liberation to the overall struggle of the working class, and to the struggle for socialism, you can start to politically defeat the current a-political / soft-liberal approach of the petit-bourgeois leaders.

Incidently, do Socialist Appeal agree with the transitional programme and method? This is after all what we are discussing now, with regards to how Marxists would intervene.

To anyone who is still against intervening - I'm inclined to give up arguing with you! Surely you can see that it's wrong for socialists to abandon liberation movements to petit-bourgeois leaderships?

Marxists in my opinion should intervene in movements for womens' rights, black rights (other minority rights), national-democratic rights, civil rights, and so on, and using a transitional programme and method they should try to win the leadership of these movements. This would neccessitate splitting these movements on class lines at some stage.

The fact that we are starting to debate the transitional programme for intervention into the LGBT liberation movement is a big step forwards for this debate. At least now most people seem to agree that intervening is necessary! That's progress...


Bye for now,




KS x

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by kimberlysark
Hi there ppl.

How do Socialist Appeal members propose breaking the hold of the petit-bourgeois leadership of the LGBT movement (or women's movement for that matter) without intervening in it? Or do you agree now, in theory at least, with intervening in it?

I don't think it should be a high priority to actively intervene heavily in this movement. Rather we should sprinkle it with Marxist theory and then let the gay/transgender workers see how much more successful the labor movement, especially under Marxist leadership, is in defending their rights. This is also the way to win over the best parts of the sects BTW.

If you do now finally agree with intervening into the LGBT liberation movement then maybe as a first step you could do some research, hold some internal discussions, and draw up a transitional programme.

Just for the benefit of others on this board, the point of having a transitional programme aimed at the LGBT liberation movement is so that you can try and win the movement to a Marxist leadership. This would of course split the movement on class lines - the current petit-bourgeois leaders would leave it for sure (good - they are a barrier after all!).

By counter-posing a socialist programme for LGBT liberation - that is tactics for the immediate struggles - and a programme that links the struggle for liberation to the overall struggle of the working class, and to the struggle for socialism, you can start to politically defeat the current a-political / soft-liberal approach of the petit-bourgeois leaders.

Incidently, do Socialist Appeal agree with the transitional programme and method? This is after all what we are discussing now, with regards to how Marxists would intervene.

To anyone who is still against intervening - I'm inclined to give up arguing with you! Surely you can see that it's wrong for socialists to abandon liberation movements to petit-bourgeois leaderships?

Marxists in my opinion should intervene in movements for womens' rights, black rights (other minority rights), national-democratic rights, civil rights, and so on, and using a transitional programme and method they should try to win the leadership of these movements. This would neccessitate splitting these movements on class lines at some stage.

The fact that we are starting to debate the transitional programme for intervention into the LGBT liberation movement is a big step forwards for this debate. At least now most people seem to agree that intervening is necessary! That's progress...


Bye for now,




KS x

Yes, I think it's a great step forward. As I have said it's a relatively important issue and its indefensible that marxist.com has nothing about it at all, not even a single article. Actually I basically agree with everything you say.

The problem is that what you say directly contradicts your own program. What about my criticism of your petty bourgeois identity politics? Seems like it convinced you, or what?

[Volkov]

Originally posted by Irish Militant

But I am getting distracted from the main point once more. All of this is an argument about the kind of things which have been said on this thread. It isn't about the official statements of Socialist Appeal and co on gay liberation for the conspicuous reason that there are none that we can find. The central responsibility of a Marxist organisation, to offer leadership on the question facing the working class is entirely abdicated. Which brings me to Volkov’s point. Volkov claims that gay liberation is a simple issue about which Marxists have nothing new to say. That to me seems to me a remarkably shallow way of looking at the subject.

And of course, my words are either intentionally distorted or misunderstood;  first of all, I was assuming that it would be self-evident that what Grant had said was taking a stance agains the Petty-Bourgeois outlook and goals for such liberation.  Secondly, and obviously, it seems that there is a lot more material on issues like the class struggle, increasing wages, gaining influence, etc. amongst the workers.  It is obviously a rather complex issue, but we must keep in mind that any progressive minded person already agrees with gay liberation, and a lot of what has been said about it is literally rather obvious.  The other part, of which is more complex than the more common outlook, can be pretty easily understood when one applies Marxist methods to the question of liberation.

The oppression of gay people is an extremely complex issue, tied up with the oppression of women and the nature of the family. Notions of the “natural” nuclear family, and therefore the “unnatural” status of gay relations run deep in capitalist society. The oppression of gays has undergone very serious changes in recent decades, with the gradual removal of legal penalties for gay sex, and long struggles over differential ages of consent. Gay marriage is a very live issue across much of the Western world. Importantly for Marxists, the gay “community” is itself as class divided as the rest of society and the experiences of gay people in working class communities, unsheltered by the so-called “pink pound” can be very different to those of wealthy gay people. And of course, homophobia remains a useful way to divide the working class – to give an illustration homophobic bullying (which happens to students who are actually straight as well as to gay students) is one of the most common forms of bullying in schools.

Family notions, capitalist divide-and-conquer, homophobia being a big problem over here in the US, i.e. things that can be very easily understood by applying a Marxist perspective to the issue.  

These are important issues and it is necessary for Marxists to develop a programme to deal with them, to link them in to a wider working class struggle for socialism. Yet the Woods group has abjectly failed to even begin this work.

I think that Rune (Daymare17) has demolished whatever remains of your argument, exposing your opportunism and such.  It turns out that we are the ones that wish to unite the sections of Proletariat, and therefore, are the ones who wish to gain gay rights by genuinely Marxist (and realistic) means!

[P.O.U.M]

I found this qoute from "The Housing Question" by Engels which can be found at MIA.

"it is not that the solution of the housing question simultaneously solves the social question, but that only by the solution of the social question, that is, by the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, is the solution of the housing question made possible."

I think this has complete relevance to the topic, just instead of housing it is gay liberation.

[Volkov]

Originally posted by P.O.U.M
I found this qoute from "The Housing Question" by Engels which can be found at MIA.

"it is not that the solution of the housing question simultaneously solves the social question, but that only by the solution of the social question, that is, by the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, is the solution of the housing question made possible."

I think this has complete relevance to the topic, just instead of housing it is gay liberation.

I think that you are right about this.

[Xanthus]

I don't have time to give a full reply to this, but seeing this topic, I just had to chime 2c or so.

I am a member of the CMI. I too have been surprised at the lack of material our tendancy has released regarding the "gay question".
The reason it has been neglected is that the question of homosexuality is in essence no different from the question of any other repressed minority segment of the working class. It, like the question of race or women's liberation, can only be solved by a society in which arbitrary divisions are not needed in order to maintain the power structure. I have never met a member of the CMI who has failed to whole-heartedly support progressive movements which seek to end these divisions, along with all other divisions which cripple our ability to work for a common goal.

That being said, I do agree that there's a need to clarify our positions in some of these matters. I think it is an oversight that nobody has happened to release a solid article regarding the issue of homosexuality, and I know others who feel the same way. One comrade up here in Canada has been working on ideas for just such a piece, and I'm sure others elsewhere are doing the same. Such documents, in an open organisation, will come from whoever decides to take the time to write them, and not from "above". Therefore, this oversight cannot be sited as a knock on any of the leadership; none of which, to my knowledge, are anything less then supportive of the issue, just as with women's lib, etc.

Originally posted by mir
The gay question seems to me too decadent because the sexual orientation of a person should be something private but today you have gays proclaiming their sexuality openly.  The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, I would say, is best.  You can discriminate against women and against minorities because they cannot hide their appearance, however you cannot discriminate against a gay person unless they show you that they are gay.  Gays should try to stop focusing on themselves as a seperate segment of society, but join the fight for true equality and socialism, not against petty bourgeois discrimination.

Also I am against gay marriage because a woman and a woman cannot have children and a man and a man cannot either, therefore institutionalizing their union is unnatural from the point of view of science.  However, I do support them getting similar benefits that married couples receive.  Also, I think sex changes must be banned and transexuals and that type of nonsense should be made illegal.

This is the one post from my skim of the topic that I found repugnant enough to warrent a reply.

I am a bi-sexual myself, and ironically -- since it seems to cover all the bases of Mir's last paragraph -- was engaged not long ago to a transgendered person.

I can say without doubt that such arguments as "transexuals and that type of nonsense should be made illegal" come from no place other then pure ignorance. My former fiancee for example had no surguries, and took no hormonal drugs. She is a man born with as many female hormones as male, if not more. She has a completely female brainscan (differences that can clearly be seen on an MRI), and female features, including breast tissue, which made her look -- even while not trying, or wearing any makeup, etc -- like a beautiful woman, and in no way like a man.

I find from experience that arguments -- like your's Mir -- tend to end abruptly as soon as the person expressing those arguments meets her, or someone else like her. People who express such repressive ideas are generally ignorant of the fact that people CAN be born with female minds and male organs, or vice-versa.

As for the "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy, it is equally repugnant. I have never personally "acted gay". I have never been to a pride parade. And I dislike the "gay scene" a great deal, just as I do with the straight "meat market" scene, which is essencially the same thing. That being said, I take offense if someone suggests I must keep the fact to myself.

There should not be any overriding "moral standards" through which we all must act. The idea that a gay man should hide the fact of being gay to avoid descrimination is no different from saying a woman should hide her face to avoid being raped. They are equally repressive ideas. The freedom to be and the freedom to express are intertwined, and without one there can be no progressive movement on the other. Absolutely, gay people should be breaking barriers between themselves and the rest of the working class, but the only way that can happen is if a man talking about his boyfriend becomes just as accepted socially as a man talking about his girlfriend. Breaking barriers by putting up differnt barriers like the one against "acting gay" is impossible. Barriers against co-operation can only be destroyed side by side with barriers against expression.

[MVPaviaItalia]

Hello everybody. I'm not contributing often on this discussion forum, but I think I will appear some more in the future.

Apart from mir's position, which should be in my opinion better worked out, I read many interesting posts in this thread.

Of course, glbt rights is an important issue, which shares some features of the women's question which has received a very good coverage in our propaganda material. I think that our (CMI's) position on the glbt issue is absolutely correct: while opposing the petty-bourgeois view of abstract cultural "gay liberation" (= freedom for the Versaces and the Elton Johns), we stand undoubtedly for full glbt rights explaining the inextricable link between glbt oppression, reactionary family policies, sexism, social oppression.

This does not mean that we can just say "well, the problem will be solved after the revolution". As with the national question, the women's question, the environmental question (too few articles on that too!!), the question of racism etc, we need to link through a transitional programme a proletarian approach to those subordinate (but important) issues with the goal of international socialism.

However, I'd like to express my opinion on comrade Irish Militant way of arguing against the "Woods Group" (ie the Committee for a Marxist International). I notice a typical sectarian attitude in his way of attacking us. Sectarians are like robots: they behave through a few, rather simple standard patterns. This thread is an example of the You tell nothing about this pattern. Once I read an issue of a Spartacist paper (the Spartacists are  the weirdest ultraleft sect in the world, in my opinion) denouncing that the Italian CMI members "in the latest issues of their paper have never demanded the full expropriation of the Catholic Church", which in their mind was a clear proof of our sympathy towards the pope...

I could agree with a comrade who told that the website In defence of Marxism should publish something on the glbt question. If not much has been published, however, it just means that we forgot to write it or we just never developed enough our position on this issue because we don't have a good work in this movement somewhere. We lacked enough good articles on China, too, and the reason was very easy: we still didn't discuss enough on that and we had no work started in China. The site still lacks almost completely articles about Japan, and it's a very important country. So what? We are doing well but we need to do better, and more. This is very cheap wisdom and we didn't need comrade Irish Militant to know that.

Not to have a class position on Japan, China or the glbt question is unforgettable. Not to have lengthy articles with deep insight on those issues could maybe prevent us from getting some useful political results but is not in itself a proof of us being anti-gay, anti-Chinese or anti-Japanese. I'm sure I can find a very important issue not dealt with on the CWI website too, if I just had the slightest intention of visiting it (which I have not, since I don't need to create artificial arguments against CWI comrades).

Usually an exaggerated stress on such issues is, on the opposite, a sign of a bad orientation in the work of a wanna-be revolutionary organization. All reformist organizations I know talk a lot about gay rights, unfortunately on all other issues they are as revolutionary as a Medieval bishop.

If comrade Irish Militant wanted to give us a tactical advice about a field of work we should develop more, thank you very much, we'll think about it but I doubt it could be a tactical priority everywhere (tactics is like that)... and I'd rather like to read something more about Japan. If he wanted to argue that we oppose gay rights, please shut up. You don't know 1% of what we do, you just read a website but we are a real organization and not a website. We just have a website (that scores a very high number of hits, moreover: maybe we are not so bad in choosing the subjects of our material).

Coming soon: more about other sectarian behaviour patterns (SBPs) and the cult of Alan's personality (Karl Marx is the Best One and Alan Woods is His Prophet -- He will do even better than the Wise Old Man Emperor Ted Grant I).