Towards a Scientific Analysis of the Gay Question (Los Angeles Research Group)

Towards a Scientific Analysis of the Gay Question
Author	Los Angeles Research Group
First published	1975
Type	Book

Introduction

We are a group of approximately ten communists who are gay women. We have come together because we are increasingly concerned with and disturbed by the spreading and consolidation of an anti-gay line which is expressed organizationally by the refusal to allow gays membership in communist organizations. Although this line has reached its clearest expression through such organizations as the Revolutionary Union (RU) and the October League (OL), its influence is certainly not limited to these organizations. We feel that particularly in this period of rising political struggle concerning the building of a party, it is extremely important that this question be met head on and struggled with. The approach taken toward resolving this question will indeed reflect the way that the communist forces deal with finding the correct line in other important questions. Incorrect thinking does not stay confined to one neat little area, but spills over into all other political struggle in that it reflects an overall approach to political questions.

We found the most concrete expression of this incorrect line on the gay question in a paper the RU wrote for the Attica Brigade. While the RU disavows this paper as an official document, our experience has shown that the arguments used in that paper are the basis for the anti-gay line put forward by all the other communist forces who espouse that line. Thus, we are using their paper as a vehicle for combatting that line and the incorrect assumptions and arguments it is based on. Our criticisms of the RU paper are therefore not limited to the RU, but are extended to all such evidence of this incorrect line within the communist movement.

The purpose of this paper is to refute the incorrect analyses that are dominant today in the communist movement. As such, it is a polemic. We realize that a correct line emerges and is developed in the process of summing up practice, analyzing history, and in struggling against incorrect analyses. This paper is a beginning of that process. Our purpose at this time is not to put forth a complete analysis of our own on all aspects of gayness. Our investigation and study on the gay question is incomplete. However, we do have a clear perspective from which we have approached the question. Our experience and practice lead us to believe the gay question is integrally and structurally tied to the woman question, and the key to the resolution of both is found in the division of labor between the sexes. The nuclear family as an economic unit with its corresponding super-structural aspects has been, since the introduction of class society, the great perpetrator of the division of labor between the sexes, to the benefit of the ruling classes. Until this division of labor is broken down, by the introduction of women into production, and social and political life on an equal basis with men, and by the socialization of the functions of women within the nuclear family with respect to the reproduction and maintenance of labor power, there will be oppression of women and oppression of gay people.

Because of our limited experience, this paper concentrates more on lesbians than gay men. However, our position that it is politically incorrect to exclude people who agree on ideological, political and organizational questions from communist organizations solely because of a person’s sexuality clearly holds for both gay women and men. Our conclusion is based not so much on our experience as lesbian communists but from applying Marxist methodology. Consequently, anyone utilizing the same method of investigation, be they gay or heterosexual, should arrive at the same conclusion.

We are going to proceed with our study and hope that others, too, will take up this work. We think that this paper establishes conclusively that the exclusion of comrades from communist organizations of the basis of sexuality is incorrect. We specifically invite struggle over this question and hope that people will communicate their ideas and criticisms to us.

Los Angeles Research Group

PO Box 1362

Cudahy, California 90201

Introduction to the Second Printing

The response to this paper has been much greater than we had anticipated, so we are reprinting it again to meet the demand. We have learned much since the paper was first put out, both from feedback on the paper, and from our own development as communists. So we are using this introduction to clarify certain points in the paper, and to correct errors which still appear in the text.

We said in the paper that the process in which we arrive at incorrect ideas does not just stay confined to one area, but spills over into other areas. This is because incorrect ideas or conclusions are usually a reflection of an incorrect approach to a question. Marxist-Leninists are scientists. They use the Marxist line of cognition and method of analysis to approach all questions. Marxist-Leninists start from a thorough and concrete investigation of concrete conditions, and, moving from perceptions and observations to rational conclusions drawn from numerous perceptions, try to discover and interpret the laws of relations within and between phenomena—to see how things work and how they can be affected. They then test out their conclusions in social practice.

Take the example of Marxist-Leninists who are faced with the problem of crossing a river. First they investigate. They measure the current, width, depth of the river. Then they weigh this against the materials at hand, the strength of forces or extent of resources available to the task and the speed in which they need to get to the other side. They know from summed up past practice (theory) that this is important to do, that these factors influence which of the historically tested methods of crossing (building bridges, a raft or boat, swimming, etc.) to apply to the task. Then they test out the method they have selected. If it doesn’t work, the next time they’ll know that as well, and that information will be added to the knowledge they bring to the situation at hand.

Marxist-Leninists strive to apply the science of dialectical and historical materialism (ideology) to every question, to every problem. We say that political line is a reflection of ideological line, since particular solutions to particular questions (political line) are derived from the way these questions are looked at, analyzed, interpreted, and acted on. So, for example, if a group comes to a position on the gay question based on feelings, or suppositions, or moralisms, instead of by doing a concrete investigation of the question, then that group’s position cannot be correct—unless if by luck. And if that group sees nothing wrong with their approach to this one question and does not apply the fundamental laws of Marxism-Leninism to it, then they are certain to repeat the same mistakes in other questions. Why would a group intentionally approach one question differently from all other questions? (If they did, and if they did so intentionally, then this is a clear ideological deviation to make an exception of the gay question.)

We think that within the Marxist-Leninist movement as it currently exists, there are differences in the extent to which different organizations practice Marxism-Leninism. It is a young movement which makes mistakes because of incorrect approaches to political questions, approaches which are sometimes not materialist, not dialectical and not historical. Certainly this is true of these organizations’ approaches to the gay question. If these organizations were to be judged solely on their approaches to and conclusions on the gay question, we would say that they do not practice Marxism-Leninism at all. However, it is important to note that they do not approach all questions as they do the gay question. And that is why we think it is important to struggle with them over their approach to this question.

This central ideological problem not only applies to young Marxist-Leninist organizations. Others, such as NAM, who conclude as we do that gays should not be excluded from communist organizations, also suffer from the same ideological weakness. Their opposite conclusion comes from the same lack of investigation, the same lack of application of scientific principles and laws. So, even though we agree with their conclusion on this particular issue, we do not think that their approach is correct. We have seen the effects of this incorrect and unscientific approach on their stands on other questions. They have failed to apply the universal laws of Marxism-Leninism to other issues (like party-building), and so their conclusions have been incorrect. As we said, lack of investigation in one area usually corresponds to a similar lack in other areas. We cannot and do not assume general unity with them based only on conclusionary unity on a particular question. This would indeed be false unity.

The second point we need to clarify is our view of where we as Marxist-Leninists should focus our organizing. Historical materialism teaches us that the only consistently revolutionary class is the working class; and that without the leadership of a proletarian party with a correct line, the working class cannot succeed in its revolutionary aim. Because of this, we see building that party and working among the proletariat, organizing workers, to be our primary task. And the primary place for doing that organizing is in the workplace where the contradiction between the worker and the capitalist is the clearest. It is as workers that we have the power to lead and make a successful socialist revolution. It is as workers that we can learn and prove how socialized production creates the unity of the multi-national working class and the solidarity of all workers, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. Thus we think that the correct way to organize gays is primarily as workers, and not as part of a separate gay community. Gays should be organized in the same ways and into the same organizations as all other workers – at the workplace.

It is also in the workplace that Marxist-Leninists can best undergo the process of developing proletarian ideology and proletarian class stand which will enable us to sharply struggle against the dominant strains of bourgeois ideology and where we can best test and develop our political line. We have seen historically, in the CPUSA, the errors of the CP not consolidating organizationally in the working class, of the CP not being rooted in the proletariat. Both their ideology and their political line suffered from it. Unless a communist party is integrated into the working class and unless it is guided by a correct ideological and political line developed from the perspective of the working class, there can be no successful revolution, since it is the working class that is the motive force in history.

Based on these reasons, we seriously disagree with organizations who base their political work solely in a particular community or who work solely around a particular issue. Gay liberation organizations and mass organizations of gays are important, but are not the place where gay communists should place their primary efforts and resources. This is because we do not yet have in this country a communist party which is capable of leading, coordinating and giving direction to struggles in the mass movement—be it the women’s movement, the gay rights movement, or the national minorities’ movement. We do not have an anti-revisionist communist party which is rooted in the working class, which has sufficiently transformed its world outlook to that of the proletariat, and which has developed a political line to fit the conditions of the US. Until we have such a party, and until such a party is consolidated, our task must be to build it, and to build it primarily at the workplace, by developing strong communist leadership at the workplace and building strong ties with advanced workers at the workplace so that we can have a genuine communist party of the working class. In other words, until a party is formed and until advanced workers have been consolidated around the leadership of the party and its correct line, our task is to win the advanced workers to communism and the party. It is only after this has been done that communists, under the direction of the party, should put their primary energies into developing and working within the mass movement, including the movement for democratic rights for gays.

There are three specific points we want to clarify in response to criticism we received of the paper.

1. The weakest areas of our paper were those in which we attempted to put forward affirmative analyses instead of refuting incorrect ones. Specifically, our section on Material Oppression of gays is the weakest part of the paper, although we recognize that this is the most crucial element in a scientific understanding of the question.

We have not sufficiently developed the relationship between the gay question and the woman question. Although it seems that historically gay oppression is tied in time and place to the development of private property, the division of labor and resulting inequality between men and women, and the development of sex roles, further investigation needs to be done to prove that historical relationship and the conclusions which flow from it.

Similarly, our analysis of the role of the bourgeois nuclear family is weak. We see that there are both negative and positive aspects of the family, but we do not say which is dominant and at which historical periods. This again reflects our limitations and is a weakness in the paper. Another major weakness is that we do not provide a definition of “gayness.” We do not suggest whether and to what extent gayness is a biological trait that people are born with, or an acquired, societal trait.

We see these three major theoretical weaknesses not only as our own, but as reflective of major historical theoretical weaknesses in the communist movement of which we are a part. However, the hard work of researching and investigating these questions has begun. People are beginning to find data on these subjects from pre-historic times to the present, focusing on the extent to which gayness existed, was allowed to exist, or encouraged, and on the nature and extent of oppression of gays at different historical periods. Research is being done on the role of biology and of society in the definition of “gayness.” It is this historical and scientific lack of information that makes our paper incomplete—and that also makes the anti-gay analysis incorrect from a strictly scientific standpoint. The struggle for a complete, correct line on the gay question will be protracted and will not be resolved overnight with scanty, perceptual and superficial information. We are glad that there are now communists who are taking the task seriously.

2. In our discussion on page 65 of the Soviet Union’s dramatic reversal in the 1930s (the passing of laws and policy which outlawed abortion and homosexuality and which provided material incentives and support for the increased production of children), we did not mean to imply that this was a correct tact for the party to have taken. Rather, we see these acts as mechanical approaches to complex and serious problems. We think that those acts instituted by the party at that time sold short the role of the masses, in that they opted for rigid laws and material, economic incentives instead of mass education and persuasion. They did not bring the theory behind the problems to the people, but laid down the “solutions” to the problems. They used capitalist means of meeting the real needs of reproducing the working class, rather than developing socialist methods of resolving the contradiction. We see this approach as incorrect. We used the example, however, to show that communists must solve problems based on the analysis of concrete historical conditions. To equate the conditions of the USSR in the 1930s with those of the US in the 1970s is incorrect. We think that this is what some of the new communist groups have done with respect to the gay question.

3. Finally, we stress again the main point of this paper: we believe that one’s class stand and world outlook determines whether one is truly a proletarian revolutionary. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is a substitute for or a test of one’s class stand. This paper shows why.

Chapter 1 - Methodology

Before addressing the specific content of antigay arguments, we will outline our understanding of Marxist methodology which communists utilize to arrive at a correct analysis of a problem.

Marxist methodology is first and foremost a world outlook, the essence of Marxism-Leninism. It is dialectical materialism: the way by which communists understand and change the world. It is a tool, a guide to action in the service of the proletariat. It is not neutral, and teaches that it is not enough to simply understand the world, but that an understanding must be put to use to change the world according to the class interests of the proletariat. Using Marxist methodology means having, and putting to use, a proletarian world outlook.

The science of Marxism begins with the thorough investigation of concrete conditions; we proceed from objective and historical reality, rather than subjective wishes or preconceived notions.

We cannot know something superficially and expect to arrive at a proper analysis; we must deal with phenomena in both the general and the particular; we must know the basic characteristics, trends and development of a thing in its particular historical period, and must not look at a thing in isolation. We cannot come to rash conclusions when a situation is still unclear; we must oppose carelessness and stress meticulousness; we cannot be satisfied with a one-sided approach. We cannot merely outline the appearance of a thing, but must get to its essence by grasping its principal contradiction.

We must “appropriate the material in detail, analyze its different forms of development and trace out their inner connections. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described.” Marxism, then, is a science, and the scientific method means an honest seeking of truth from concrete facts, not the raising of one’s personal feelings to the level of theory or line.

To arrive at a correct analysis, a communist must derive theory from practice, using the tools of dialectical and historical materialism. We must not be content to formulate and act upon hypotheses that fit our notion of what should be, but by doing work among the masses, learn what is. Out of many experiences general ideas and calls to action can be found, using the Marxist-Leninist method of investigation to pick out contradictions and tendencies of development. These generalizations must be tested in practice and what is learned from that must again be summed up to form the basis for new directions which will push our practice even further.

To combat subjectivism we must propagate materialism and dialectics…. Communists must always go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well founded; on no account should they follow blindly and encourage slavishness.

We must remember that in developing a political line, a correct ideological approach is key. “The Marxist line of cognition is the ideological foundation of the political line of the proletarian party. At the same time, it serves the political line. Without a correct line of cognition, therefore, it would be impossible to formulate and implement a correct political line.”

It is imperative that we learn to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to all questions and problems that confront us. To fail to learn and utilize this scientific method will cause us to lose our bearings, become adrift, and retard the development of the revolutionary struggle led by the working class.

We must remember the fundamental insight that society is changed through the development and resolution of its own internal contradictions at any historical period. The primary contradiction, that which controls the resolution of all others, is that between the socialized forces of production and the private appropriation of wealth, the contradiction between classes.

It is with this methodology and world outlook that we read and assess the RU and other antigay analyses. We ask: where is their investigation and study? Where is their historical and material evidence? Such questions should be kept in mind throughout the rest of this paper. We have found that the RU has systematically abandoned Marxist methodology and proletarian ideology throughout their analysis, and that their line is consequently incorrect.

Chapter 2 - Is Gayness a Response to Decaying Imperialism?

The basic premise of the RU’s position on gay people is stated in their unsupported assertion that:

[H]omosexuality in the US today is an individual response to the intensification of the contradictions brought about by decaying imperialism: in particular, it is a response to the contradiction between men and women which is rooted in male supremacist institutions and male chauvinist ideology [see Appendix 2].

The fact is that homosexuality has existed in all historical periods, it has been socially accepted and even encouraged in societies prior to capitalism (for example, in primitive communist societies such as the Iroquois and Mojaves). If, as Marxist-Leninists, we know that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, then homosexuality in pre-capitalist societies clearly was not a response to decaying imperialism, which had not yet historically occurred.

The unsupported statement that “homosexuality is a response—consciously or not—to a male supremacist society” has no basis in historical fact. (The October League has similarly asserted that homosexuality arises in periods of societal decay and in times of extraordinarily severe oppression of women.) The truth is that homosexuality existed in matriarchal societies in which male supremacy was not dominant (such as the Philippines before the Spanish invasions of the 16th century). Thus gayness existed in periods of female dominance or periods in which women were highly respected, and not just in times of heavy oppression of women. Looking to U.S. history, the preCivil War period in the south was a period of great oppression of women, but there is not recorded a corresponding rise in gayness.

The RU seems to base all gay relationships on a response to male supremacy and chauvinism, and the increased alienation under decaying capitalism. Although it is true that capitalism intensifies alienation in all members of society, particularly the working class and petit-bourgeoisie, it does not follow simply that alienation is the source of sexual relations, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

What scientific and historical evidence is presented to support the contention that gayness is an individual response to the contradictions of decaying imperialism? Absolutely none. Or, are we to believe that the RU feels such a statement is just “naturally” true and needs no backing? As communists and gays, we disagree. We are aware of the many “natural” ideas that the bourgeoisie tries to pass off as true. The RU recognizes this when they correctly state in their Draft Programme that the ideas and outlook of the capitalists, and other exploiting classes which have ruled society for thousands of years, have become deeply entrenched in society, and have largely acquired the “force of habit.” The bourgeoisie takes advantage of this to promote the so-called “theory of human nature,” which says that people are basically selfish and will never change, so socialism is bound to fail and communism is a hopeless Utopia.

This bourgeois “theory” is age-old garbage. There is no such thing as “human nature” in the abstract, divorced from classes.

In the slave system, it was considered “natural” for one group of people, the slave-owners, to own other people, the slaves. In capitalist society, this idea is regarded as criminal and absurd, because the bourgeoisie has no need for slaves as private property (at least not in its own country). But it has every need for wage-slaves, proletarians. So it presents as “natural” the kind of society where a small group, the capitalists, own the means of production and on that basis force the great majority of society to work to enrich them.

First, as we have shown, the RU and others offer no evidence that gayness is a “response” either to decaying imperialism or male supremacy and chauvinism. Further, to label something merely as a “response” suggests a linear analysis of history rather than a dialectical approach.

Second, it is a mistake to focus on response and label it negative. Take for instance, the historical phenomena of capitalism and imperialism. Class struggle and wars of national liberation are “responses” we support and participate in. Class collaboration is also a “response”; it is a response to be isolated and defeated. Thus it is insufficient to dismiss a phenomenon as a “response” and as such label it negative. What is key is the form it takes—whose class interests it advances. Class collaboration is an incorrect “response” to bourgeois rule because it perpetuates the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. Class struggle and wars of national liberation support the interests of the international proletariat.

We assume the RU labels gayness not only a “response” but an incorrect one. However, no real evidence is presented as to how or why gayness retards class struggle. Heterosexuality, in and of itself, is neither progressive nor reactionary. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is neither progressive nor reactionary. It is not sexuality which determines class stands, it is the world outlook people bring to their relationships and work.

Our limited study and experience lead us to believe the question of why people are gay is much too complex to be dealt with in such a facile and subjective way as “it’s a response.” With a methodological approach as unscientific and un-Marxist as the above, we will never develop the correct lines necessary to build a revolutionary working-class movement, nor a party which represents the organized advanced detachment of the working class to lead the socialist revolution in this country.

Chapter 3 - Is Gayness a Reflection of Petit-Bourgeois Ideology

Following from the RU’s main premise is the thrust of their anti-gay line which is that gayness is a manifestation of (petit) bourgeois ideology, and not proletarian ideology, and that this is reflected in several aspects of gayness. Let’s examine these.

A. Ideology

The RU says “homosexuality is an ideology of the petit-bourgeoisie.” First, this is an incorrect and unscientific use of terms. Marxists must be careful and precise in using words, since the point of the science is to clarify, and not muddle up our thinking and analysis. Ideology is a reflection of class; it is a world outlook. In the world today two classes are competing for power: the capitalist (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). There are two world outlooks, two competing ideologies.

The ideology of the bourgeoisie is the ideas and world view which expresses and supports their class interests. It serves to maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie (the private ownership of the means of production, natural resources, etc.) and justify imperialism. In the capitalist world its ideology is dominant and is perpetuated by bourgeois institutions (political, judicial, mass media, education, etc.).

The second and rising ideology is that of the proletariat, the revolutionary working class. Its world outlook is Marxism-Leninism, the theory and practice of socialist revolution; it recognizes the labor theory of value and proletarian internationalism.

Although in capitalist society there are middle classes between the bourgeoisie and the working class, there is no third ideology. Caught between the two major classes, the petit bourgeois reflects aspects of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As people who sell, trade, socially mix with and aspire to become part of the bourgeoisie, and fear being pushed into the working class, many petit-bourgeoisie identify with or support the bourgeoisie and its dominant (at this time in the U.S.) ideology. On the other hand, as people who work and do not own the major means of production, people who are being pushed into the working class, the petit bourgeoisie are open ideologically to the working class. They are potential allies of the working class and can be won to proletarian leadership and the struggle against capitalism.

It is their social and economic position between the two dominant classes (neither capitalist nor working class), the fact that they are neither the ruling and expropriating class, nor the exploited and revolutionary class, that historically leads to petit-bourgeois types of thinking (empiricism and subjectivism) and behavior (vacillation, individualism, opportunism, and tailism).

To use “ideology” as the RU does one would have to say that in general individual love relationships in this society are an ideology of the petit bourgeoisie. But it is ridiculous to speak of an individual relationship as an “ideology.” Sexual relationships exist and will exist in all societies, primitive, feudal, capitalist, communist. What is true is that such relationships will be marked by the ruling ideology of that society. Homosexuality is no more an ideology than heterosexuality is.

B. Escape

Having made the unsupported statement that gayness is a response to male supremacy and decaying imperialism, the RU goes further to characterize this response as turning “its back to the struggle between men and women,” and as “premised upon the unwillingness to struggle with the opposite sex in very important relationships.” Further, “Lesbianism is… an escape from male chauvinism; male homosexuality reinforces male chauvinism in its refusal to deal with relationships with women.” (emphasis theirs) These characterizations run into several problems.

As communists we struggle against male chauvinism and supremacy in our places of work, school, mass and communist organizations, among friends and comrades. Love relationships are not the source of male chauvinism and supremacy; rather, like all aspects of life under capitalist class relations and culture they merely reflect the reality of class divisions. No individual relationship under capitalism is, per se, a relationship in which people struggle against male chauvinism. Consciousness must be brought to it.

Therefore, as communists, we know that male supremacy and male chauvinism will not disappear through men and women struggling in individual love relationships. We believe the oppression of women can only begin to be resolved when a firm material basis has been laid by a socialist revolution, led by the working class and its party, resulting in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In other words, we see mass collective working-class struggle as key and primary to the ending of women’s oppression, and individual struggle in love relationships as decidedly secondary and supportive. To make a blanket assertion that gays turn their back on the “struggle between men and women” is to deny the dual nature of the struggle, i.e., its mass character which is primary, and its individual character which is secondary.

Second, the RU does not say gayness is an “attempt” to “escape” from male chauvinism, but that it is an “escape,” a turning away from struggle. We don’t think it is splitting hairs to pick up on this. Such a view reflects an idealistic conception of the dominance and pervasiveness of male supremacy and chauvinism in an advanced capitalist society. The fact is that no one – male or female – can “escape” male chauvinism and supremacy in a capitalist society. Capitalism needs and perpetuates them; they are integral to the socialization of both men and women in the workplace, at home, and in the community. Male supremacy is not such a weak, isolated part of bourgeois ideology that a person can “escape” by merely changing who they relate to. Concrete experience shows that gays, particularly gay women, must still confront male supremacy and chauvinism at work, in school, on the street, in political organizations, whereever they are.

Indeed, not only is homosexuality not an “escape,” but the oppression by male chauvinism and supremacy increases. The bourgeoisie uses male supremacy and chauvinism to whip up antigay prejudice to further divide the working class. When gay women are told that what they really need is a “good fuck” it is not totally unanalogous to the chauvinist idea that every woman secretly yearns to be raped, that “no” means “yes” or that a “good fuck” will cure a woman of frigidity. Nor is it surprising that a woman who is strong and assertive, or intelligent and competent, or athletic, may be called a lesbian to intimidate her into a more “suitable” role, i.e., passive and supportive. People will wonder if a man is gay if he is gentle or soft-spoken, or into art or poetry, or not bragging about the women he’s had, because he is not acting like a “man” but as a “woman.” Indeed, one of the initial strong points of the gay liberation movement was its recognition that it must fight not only anti-gayness but the oppression of women in general.

Finally, we are struck by the consistently negative, one-sided way that the RU views gay relationships. In fact, their view of gayness as an “unwillingness” to relate to, or as an “escape” from the opposite sex, closely reflects the bourgeois sociologists and psychologists view that gayness is “unnatural” or an “inability” to relate to a person of the opposite sex. We think it is important to look at the other side of the coin: gayness is the ability to relate to a person of the same sex. This is not an idealist approach but a dialectical one.

We believe that the gross and consistent negativism of the RU concerning gays comes more from their own subjectivism than any correct concern with petit-bourgeois individualism. Marxist methodology teaches us we must study conditions conscientiously and proceed from objective reality, not from subjective wishes; we must learn to get to the essence of phenomena and not be satisfied with appearance.

C. Individual Choice

The RU seems particularly concerned with the negative aspects of the individuality of gay women, particularly those in the women’s movement:

“These are women who… wouldn’t or couldn’t deal with men in their personal relationships.” But if we look at this dialectically, lesbianism per se, does not necessarily mean rejection of men. It can and often does say something affirmative about a woman’s relations with women. It is not necessarily a question of “couldn’t” or “wouldn’t” but may also be that a woman could relate to another woman.

This is not to deny that there are gay women who enter gay relationships because of negative sexual experiences with men; there are also gay women who express strong anti-male feelings. However, there are many gay women who do not. By mentioning only the former, RU’s conclusion is one-sided. Similarly, it is one-sided to focus only on gay women who voice anti-male sentiments, and ignore the countless heterosexual women who express equally strong anti-male comments and actions. Likewise, the actions of many heterosexual men exhibit disrespect for women and anti-female attitudes of which rape is only an extreme example.

Anti-male sentiments expressed by gay and heterosexual women (and anti-female actions and feelings of gay and heterosexual men) reflect the appearance of things; the essence is the material oppression of women and sexism under capitalism. The key point to understand is that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (and its ideology) has oppressed women. Consequently, there is at present a contradiction between women and men. Communists, gay or heterosexual, seek to resolve this contradiction (1) by recognizing that the material conditions to end the oppression of women can exist only under a socialist economy and (2) by working to unite all who can be united to fight both for the full democratic rights of women and for socialism.

Bourgeois ideology, in its attempt to divide the working class, has worked to keep women fighting and competing with each other. The crushing pressure first to “get that man” and then to “keep that man,” proofs of a “real woman,” makes women suspicious of and fighting other women, rather than uniting and fighting the real enemy, imperialism.

The women’s movement has shown that there is more to unite women, particularly working-class women, than to keep us fighting each other. Through common political struggle and practice deep friendships form. Some of these have become sexual, not so much from a refusal to deal with men, but rather from the realization that women are also people with whom meaningful relationships can be had. For professed Marxist-Leninists to read into women loving women a rejection of men reflects the bourgeois ideology that a woman is not happy or fulfilled without a man, that women in their primary relationship should love a man more than a woman, that men are superior to women. It is a one-sided approach.

This rejection theory also hints at the subjective fears and threats felt by men conditioned by a male chauvinist and supremacist society, when confronted by women who do not rely on them. To the RU however, “Such a choice is clearly individualistic; it says: I have a right to relate the way I want to, I can do what I want with my body.” We are confused by the RU’s indignation at a woman saying she has a right to relate how she wants, or that she has a right to control what happens to her body. If a woman refuses to continue to relate to a man who constantly beats and humiliates her is she being individualistic? How about a woman who decides she wants an abortion? Do we not support a woman who refuses to be sterilized or used as a guinea pig for an experimental IUD or birth control for individualistically deciding what she wants to do with her body? What subjective prejudices is the RU operating under here?

We agree with the concept that a person’s individual needs are secondary to the needs of the revolutionary struggle. We also believe that socialist revolution is the start of the resolution of the contradictions between socialized labor and private ownership and the oppression that comes from that contradiction. This implies a respect for the individual that is lacking under the rule of capital.

D. Individual Solutions

Moving right along, the RU says because gays “are forced to live on the periphery of society… insofar as their relationships are subject to public abuse, therefore, such relationships can be only individual solutions to the contradictions of imperialism…” and what “makes it individual and not progressive—is not that it is done alone… but that it does not engage the masses of people in struggle, it doesn’t organize or set the basis for organizing masses of people to fight around their needs.” Further, “because we put class struggle first, we are opposed to all relationships which are seen by the people in them as the main source of their well-being, or as a source of personal salvation.”

Has the RU ever talked to a gay person, or indeed to any of the people they work with? The fact is, some gay people see their relationships as the primary source of their well-being, and some heterosexual people do. No communist—gay or heterosexual—sees personal relationships as the solution to the contradictions of imperialism. Sexual relationships—heterosexual or homosexual— do not challenge the power of the monopoly capitalists, or per se “move the struggle of the working class forward.” To say otherwise is pure metaphysics. There is nothing magical about heterosexual relationships that gives them “natural” claim to healthy, principled relationships, just as there is nothing magical about homosexual relationships that makes them “naturally” messed up. Some relationships strengthen the persons involved so they can engage in class struggle; others deplete energy and encourage backward ideas. Relationships are not absolute “things-in-themselves."

It is precisely one of the functions of bourgeois ideology to promote the idea that there is a wall between productive life (work) and personal life. We are told, in a thousand different ways, that while the wages we receive from our work give us the means to live, it is only at home, in our relationships, in the family, at the beach or in the mountains, that we really “live.” And for most of the people in this country, their individual personal relationships and time away from work are the only bright spots in their day-to-day lives. It is our task as communists to break down this artificial barrier and reintegrate productive life with personal life.

As presently constituted most relationships in this society, gay and heterosexual, “do not set the basis for organizing people to fight for their needs.” As Communists, we cannot deal with personal relationships in the abstract, divorced from concrete realities. The concrete reality in the U.S. today is that personal relationships have a contradictory role. On the one hand, personal relationships (and the nuclear family) are used by the bourgeoisie to mask the real contradictions in society and to perpetuate bourgeois ideology (e.g. sex roles). On the other hand, personal relationships (and the nuclear family) are indeed one of the primary sources of people’s enjoyment and give them the strength and will to go on. As communists we must deal with these contradictions in our work. It is not enough to raise grand slogans of “Defend the family.” We must educate the working class as to the dual role of relationships and the nuclear family and lead their struggle against what is negative and strengthen what is positive. We must help them tear down the wall between production and personal life. The working class needs political consciousness and understanding, not just slogans. To do otherwise is outright mechanism and denies the role of consciousness.

E. Periphery of Society

Not only are gays individualistic, says the RU, but they are outside “the mainstream of society” because they are the “subject of public abuse.” This is nonsense and the RU knows it. If gays are indeed “forced to live on the periphery of society,” then they have a lot of company: communists, minorities, undocumented workers, unmarried couples, military deserters and draft resisters, prisoners, etc., are also subject to public abuse. RU’s frequently mentioned rural commune may be on the “periphery” of society, but that is not where most gay people are. Gays are next to you at work, at school, in the supermarket, in Mayday committees and party-building forums, in other political work. They are assembly-line workers, steel and rubber workers, hospital workers, students, electricians, teachers, lawyers, unemployed, mothers and fathers. The vast majority of gay people, like the vast majority of people in this country, are workers, and even the bourgeoisie doesn’t have the stupidity to characterize workers as peripheral to society.

Who a person has a relationship with does not mystically transport them to another world. Nor will the RU’s wishful thinking. To determine one’s position in society by sexuality merely reflects the dominant bourgeois society’s obsession with sex. To say sexuality is the determining factor of one’s world outlook or politics is to say that sexuality is the primary contradiction, which ignores the fundamental Marxist insight that “changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives impetus for the supercession of the old society by the new.” We must make a concrete analysis of the classes in our society. As a general rule one’s class position and class outlook will determine one’s revolutionary potential. Gay people cross class lines; it will be their class position and class outlook, not their sexuality, which will govern their stand on socialist revolution. Working class gays, as all workers, “have a potentially inexhaustible enthusiasm for socialism.”

Just as gays are not limited to any class, they are not limited to a single race or nationality as some “communists” would pretend.

We do not pretend that the working class is wildly enthusiastic about gay people at this time. Workers, in general are not presently enchanted with communists either. Both are subject to much public abuse. Bourgeois ideology and propaganda have seen to this.

But why… does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of the least resistance, lead to the domination of the bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that the bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than the socialist ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for being spread. And the younger the socialist movement is in any given country, the more vigorously must it fight against all attempts to entrench non-socialist ideology, and the more strongly must the workers be warned against those bad counsellors who shout against “overrating the conscious element,” etc.

Workers and communists, like all people in this society, have picked up bourgeois baggage that they must now struggle to rid themselves of. This baggage, including the reactionary weapons of white and male supremacy and chauvinism, is not rational or beneficial for the working class because it only serves to keep us from uniting to overthrow capitalist, imperialist exploitation.

Anti-gayness is another form of bourgeois baggage. The bourgeoisie has said that Blacks are criminal, primitive, inferior, oversexed, have natural rhythm; Black men are out to rape white women or steal your job; Blacks are always on welfare, they’re lazy and shiftless; women are weak and helpless and need a man to lean on; they have a natural maternal instinct; men are strong and brave and don’t cry; gays are sick, they’re perverted, unnatural, they molest children, ad nauseam. We know this bourgeois garbage well because we have to struggle against all of it every day at work and among our comrades.

But it seems that while some comrades think the working class can handle communism and the fight against white and male chauvinism and supremacy, it can’t handle gayness so we will just tail after the workers on this one. When the anti-gay jokes fly, we’ll just laugh too and show the workers how much like them we are. It’s not important anyway, so why make it any harder on ourselves?

But let’s look at this attitude in light of what Lenin said on the issue of the spontaneity of the masses and communist consciousness: “But what was not a great misfortune became a real misfortune when this consciousness began to grow dim… when people—even Social Democratic organs—appeared who were prepared to regard shortcomings as virtues, that even tried to invent a theoretical basis for the slavish cringing before spontaneity.”

It is our belief, based on concrete practice, that the RU’s attitude in fact belittles the working class and its ability to recognize bourgeois ideology for what it is. As communists we must surely believe that people are not static but instead can change and move forward. Indeed, our concrete experience as workers has shown us that the people we work with are often more tolerant and willing to listen and struggle and change their attitudes than are many of our comrades. The process of “coming out” to co-workers may indeed be difficult and painful because of deep-rooted antigay prejudices, but the struggle and the resulting higher level of trust, respect, friendship and unity that often occur has been worth it. To struggle and share with a co-worker, and to later hear them say they were glad we told them and talked about it, can only reaffirm our faith in the working class as the true revolutionary class. An exemplary indication of this was the “Green Ban” strike (a strike over a non-economic issue) by an Australian building construction local to defend the right of a gay professor to teach at the university.

F. Strains and Self-Indulgence

As communists we recognize that it is difficult and takes a good deal of time and energy to have any principled relationship in this society. The extraordinary divorce rate, the proliferation of “swinging singles” bars and communities, the porno theater and nude bar in every neighborhood, rising child abuse, and widespread alcoholism and drug abuse are graphic evidence of the pressures and alienation in peoples’ lives. But to depict gay relationships as “extremely difficult,” subject to “enormous strains over and above… heterosexual relationships,” and as “rarely long lasting,” “requiring much more cultivation, much more time and energy, in short, much more self-indulgence” is only more evidence of the RU’s failure to investigate and think about what they are saying.

We do not mean to imply that gay relationships are more ideal or subject to fewer pressures than heterosexual relationships. Gay relationships are less than ideal; heterosexual relationships are less than ideal. Gays do have to deal with pressures coming from anti-gayness that many heterosexuals don’t have to deal with: fear of getting fired, repression by the vice squad, psychological pressures of having to deal with being told you are “sick” and “unnatural,” family rejection, etc. However, personal lives in many other sections of society, particularly among national minorities, are subject to “strains over and above” those in white heterosexual relationships. Black relationships are subject to the “additional” pressures of white supremacy and chauvinism, such as economic discrimination, police repression, welfare rules which break up families, etc. Yet we doubt that the RU would characterize principled relationships between black people as requiring much more cultivation or “self-indulgence” – to do so would be blatantly chauvinist. And to so characterize principled gay relationships is only further evidence of the RU subjectivism and muddy thinking on the “gay question.”

To sum up, then, the RU puts forward that gayness is a manifestation of petit bourgeois ideology, since it is self-indulgent, individualistic, an escape, an individual solution of a social problem, and since gays are at the periphery of society. We say that these conclusions are not based on fact; they are gross generalizations of the sort that come from personal fears, threats, and prejudices which are proven incorrect by even minimal investigation. To put forth conclusions based on no investigation and one-sided thinking is hardly materialist or dialectical.