Gay Liberation in Canada:
A Socialist Perspective
Class Society and Gay Oppression
by Stuart Russell
Introduction
This report is being presented by four comrades who are proposing a
series of amendments to the Political Committee Statement on Gay
Liberation. It is not a counter-report from a tendency or faction, but
rather from a number of comrades presently intervening in the gay
liberation movement, who in the course of the literary discussion have
put forward a number of criticisms relating to the Statement.
Unfortunately one of the immediately apparent weaknesses of the
literary discussion, which formally draws to a close at this Plenum, was
the total lack of any interchange on the questions in dispute. The
exchange that should have appeared in the pages of the bulletin has
occurred mostly over the telephone during the past week, as well as
during a number of informal discussions. Hopefully this Plenum will
enable this crucial exchange of viewpoints to occur — which in our view
is the road to political clarity.
However, we are already witnessing the beginnings of a convergence on
some important questions in debate before this Plenum. This is a
significant development. With further discussion we can be confident of
surmounting obstacles in the road of a full convergence. Comrades should
see that as the task of this session.
The purpose of this report is: 1) to discuss the areas and specific
points of agreement between the comrades proposing the amendments and
the Political Committee, 2) to concentrate most of the report on our
disagreements and points of unclarity, to see if we can go further
toward resolving them, 3) to motivate the vote we’re proposing to the
Central Committee, and 4) to make some remarks about the discussion on
gay liberation in our movement.
Points of agreement
In his report on behalf of the Political Committee, John Riddell says
that we as the LSA /LSO are in favour of the process of revolutionists
doing research into questions of science, culture and sexuality, and
that we’re in favour of promoting science. In so doing he makes
reference to amendment number 5. We welcome this statement as an
extremely important step toward political clarity. As I mentioned at the
beginning of this report, in our opinion a process of convergence is
unfolding in the discussion. The attitude of the PC on this question is
an indication of that process.
The PC report also states that our movement utilizes science to
refute anti-gay and reactionary theories relating to homosexuality. This
again is another positive sign.
The League uses the tools of science — we base ourselves on its
findings — while at the same time not adopting this or that particular
body of evidence or theory. In the same sense no one is proposing a
Marxist theory of sexuality, or even of homosexuality, for a vote at
this Plenum. Contributing to the elaboration of such a theory, however,
should be seen as a long term goal for our movement. At the same time
the PC says that amendment number 8 — which refers to participating in
discussions relating to gay oppression and more general theoretical
questions — is ambiguous, but nonetheless we encourage this process.
Insofar as the slogan and concept "Gay is Good" is an expression of
gay pride the PC says that it can accept amendment number 3. They say
however in the same breath that we cannot include the formulation "Gay
is Good" in the Statement because its meaning can be misinterpreted. In
our opinion this is an ambiguous and very unclear position.
Nevertheless, the fact that we now agree on some very basic questions
that previously were in dispute is very positive. It should be
underlined, as John did in his report, that we also agree on what our
strategy should be for the gay liberation movement, despite any
important tactical differences we might have.
Points of disagreement
I now want to get into the section that this report is focused on:
namely our points of disagreement relating to the PC statement.
Some comrades have asked if our amendments stand on their own feet.
Our answer is that they primarily stand on the most recent written
contributions, and more precisely they rest on this report. So while
comrades may want to make reference to earlier contributions, like those
written before the last convention, it would be best to refer to the
most recent ones. In other words, as we see it there has been a certain
evolution in the discussion — not a basic change in our position — but a
progression toward a more clear and precise elaboration of our
viewpoint.
Also it is true to say that the Revised Statement we submitted goes
further than the eight amendments only insofar as it reflects an attempt
to explain what the amendments would mean if adopted. But the Revised
Statement, which is in essence a working proposal, does not diverge on
questions of line from the proposed amendments themselves.
Class society and gay oppression
The first point I want to discuss at some length is the question
which is at the very heart of a Marxist analysis of the struggle for
gay liberation — the relationship between gay oppression, class society
and the nuclear family.
The PC believes that our movement should not reaffirm the
understanding that capitalism cannot grant gay liberation. In contrast,
the Gay Liberation report to the 1971 Plenum said the following: "Sexual
repression and the oppression of homosexuals is part and parcel of this
system. It will take a socialist revolution to lay the groundwork to
eliminate this form of oppression. This was recognized by the Bolsheviks
in 1917." In our opinion this is a correct and precise perspective, it
may not be entirely cautious, but its conclusion is correct, and that’s
what counts. We stand firm on this acquisition of the League and the
Marxist movement, and ask why the PC is trying to retreat from it?
Our movement has analyzed that while capitalism is capable of
granting certain demands of the women’s liberation movement, like for
example repealing the abortion laws, it is incapable of granting full
women’s liberation or of eliminating this form of oppression.
Similarly, in our opinion class society is capable of granting
certain democratic rights as a result of the mobilization of gay people,
but it is incapable of granting full gay liberation or eliminating gay
oppression — which would entail the elimination of sexual oppression and
all that, that entails.
In the contribution "The Central Issues in the Gay Liberation
Discussion" we stated: "while partial concessions can be wrested from
the capitalist state by the struggle of large numbers of gays for their
rights, so long as society is predicated on the need to suppress
homosexual behaviour the full rights of gay people will not be achieved.
The oppression of gays is so deeply rooted in the needs and fabric of
capitalist society that nothing short of a socialist revolution can win
their full liberation."
A correct position on the family is absolutely crucial to this
discussion. Previously we thought the PC agreed that the family should
be added to the list of institutions that the gay liberation movement
challenges — in reference to amendment number 2 — but without the
implication that it need be dismantled to achieve gay liberation. Now
the PC has retrogressed even further to say that they can’t adopt this
amendment at all. This means the PC isn’t sure about the centrality of
the family to the maintenance of gay oppression.
The family is where anti-gay prejudices begin, and is a fundamental
pillar of sexual and gay oppression. The family serves the function of
harnessing the unpaid labor of women, allows society to slough off
social responsibility for individuals and especially the young onto a
small social unit, acts as a profound conservatizing force, maintains
sexual and gay oppression, permits the reproduction of the working
class, and so on. It plays the role of a socializing force, enforcing
monogamy and perpetuating rigid sex roles which is the key area wherein
the family oppresses gays. Such roles are in direct contradiction to the
experience of every gay person’s sexual and emotional experience. "Men"
and "women" are defined in relation to each other. Reich called it,
among other things, "the factory of authoritarian ideologies and
conservative structures." Perhaps the family could survive if sexual
rights for youth were granted, but it could not coexist side-by-side
with total sexual liberation, because sexual oppression is woven into
the very fabric of the family and the system it upholds.
Thus the fundamental bulwark or central focus of sexual and gay
oppression is the monogamous, heterosexual family. In "Problems with the
Political Committee Statement on Gay Liberation" it was stated that,
"gay liberation does not, in and of itself, challenge the overall
doctrines of religion, the system of education, the existence of the
courts or the governments in nearly such a fashion as it does the
family. One can speak thousands of words about any of these institutions
without touching gay oppression directly. But one cannot even think of
the concept: nuclear family, let alone write a paragraph describing it,
without thinking of or describing an institution directly counter-posed
to gay liberation. The family ... is by its very nature, essence, and to
its very core, anti-gay."
This flows from the fact that since homosexual behaviour is
non-procreative, it threatens the proper functioning of the nuclear
family. Since this behaviour goes against the maintenance of this
central pillar of class society it must be regulated and ruthlessly
repressed. We should recall that one of the favourite accusations of
anti-gay bigots, is that the gay movement is out to "ruin the family."
It is impossible to dismantle gay oppression without dismantling the
family, because it is not possible to eliminate sexual oppression
without abolishing the family. The two are inseparably and dialectically
inter-related. The final elimination of the family will only come after
a socialist revolution, and therefore, gay and sexual oppression will
only be eliminated under a classless society. Thus gay liberation has an
objectively and-capitalist dynamic. As Reich said, "Since the compulsive
family, economically and ideologically, is part and parcel of
authoritarian society, it would be utterly naive to expect that its
effects could possibly be eradicated within this society."
Of course the gay movement challenges institutions like the legal
system differently from the family or religion. Most of its demands
presently revolve around civil rights — which directly come into
collision with the laws, the courts and the cops. However, even if civil
rights were granted and discrimination was ended gay oppression would
still continue to exist. Gay oppression evolved alongside the rise of
the patriarchal family and class society as well as rigid
anti-homosexual religious codes —they are inextricably bound to the
repression of homosexual behavior.
This is why we need to distinguish between the present demands and
long term goals of the gay movement. As Marxists we not only analyze a
social movement by studying its present demands, but also by examining
its dynamic —what direction it is headed in, and what fundamental
changes need to occur to win emancipation. For example, the feminist
movement is presently mobilized around issues like abortion repeal, the
ERA, childcare centres—all basic democratic rights. But we don’t put
blinders on and mechanistically deduce that therefore the struggle of
women for their liberation is only limited to civil rights, because we
understand the underlying thrust of this movement—not only to end
discrimination and win civil rights, but to dismantle the family, and
destroy sexism and sexual oppression.
What is gay and sexual oppression all about? It means irrational
sex-stereotyping, male chauvinism, inculcating the norms of an
authoritarian society, sexism, psychological oppression, homophobia,
self-oppression, the binding of sexuality to procreation and the
pervasiveness of the exclusive heterosexual norm. Its function is first
and foremost the maintenance of the family, as well as helping to create
submissive, docile workers to keep its system churning out profits, and
helping the ruling class to divide the oppressed. Does anyone really
think that capitalism could survive without it?
Where did gay oppression come from, and why are gays oppressed? To
answer these burning questions we need to analyze the roots of gay
oppression. A materialist view of gay oppression is based on the
understanding that it developed with the rise of class society, and will
only be eliminated with the destruction of this form of society.
In her introduction to the pamphlet Women’s Liberation in Canada,
Kate Alderdice wrote: "But women will never win total liberation in the
framework of this society. It cannot free them from the burden of labor
in the home, or integrate them fully into economic and social life. It
has no interest in doing so. The oppression of women is one of the main
pillars of capitalist society and will not disappear until capitalism
itself does. It will require a major social struggle and complete
reorganization of society to free women from servitude.... Only a
socialist Canada can, for the first time, create the conditions to
eliminate the oppression of women and all forms of exploitation." And,
we might add, including the repression of homosexuality.
A socialist revolution is the fundamental prerequisite for the final
elimination of gay oppression as with all forms of oppression.
"Our goal cannot be tolerance from straight society as presently
constituted," said the Red Butterfly (a radical gay liberation
organization) in 1970. "Because of the roles and patterns of this
society we could at best be tolerated as inferiors and ‘terminal
cases’ of an affliction. Existing American institutions cannot
assimilate homosexuality in a positive way. Liberation will require
a resistance to the kind of negative channeling this society imposes
on us and finally a radical overthrow of the institutions that
oppress us — including the removal and replacement of institutions
where necessary."
The key institution of the family as presently constituted can never
"incorporate" homosexuality. "Gay families" are inconceivable. What
niche are gay people to have in capitalism? Where are we to live? How
are we to fit into the social fabric? How are centuries of religious
taboos to be wiped out? Since when does tolerance, which is the best and
unlikely token a straight, capitalist society can offer, equal
liberation?
What are the implications of refusing to clearly affirm that
capitalism cannot grant gay liberation? How would we respond to a gay
militant who asks us why he or she should struggle for socialism if gay
oppression can be eliminated under this society?
While it is true to say that gay rights may be granted under class
society — maybe even the elimination of anti-gay discrimination to an
extent— it is ludicrous to believe that gay or sexual liberation can be
granted. And if you don’t understand that you really don’t understand
what gay liberation is all about! In "Gay Liberation: The Need For a
Socialist Perspective" it was noted that: "We must be absolutely clear
that Gay people have a role to play as well as a stake in the socialist
victory. We must recognize that wresting even an impressive series of
legal concessions from capitalism is not the equivalent of winning
liberation— socialism is required."
Some comrades have expressed the opinion that the potential of gay
liberation is somehow limited because its current demands are primarily
democratic. The idea flows from the false concept that democratic
demands have a minor role to play in the struggle for socialism. The
character of a particular demand, however, flows from its ability to set
masses of people in action against the system, not whether it falls into
one category or another. The false counter-position of democratic and
transitional demands and underestimation of the significance and power
of democratic demands is a fundamental revision of the transitional
approach. Therefore, we not only need to be able to win gays to the
struggle for socialism, but also to consistently defend the present
tactical focus by the gay movement on civil rights, which is the best
method to mobilize the largest numbers in the fight for gay liberation
and build a mass, militant gay movement.
"It is one of the tenets of the theory of the permanent
revolution that the demands for democratic rights by large groups of
people may be partially conceded but their needs cannot be
fundamentally and fully satisfied under imperialist auspices," said
George Novack. "The struggle of homosexuals for an end to their
victimization is no exception. The removal of certain legal
inequalities and disabilities will not suffice to give them the
dignity they seek. The changes they aspire to bring about not only
affront deeply lodged prejudices of bourgeois society and the
churches, but call into question auxiliary props of the nuclear
family and the marriage code.
"The attacks upon such institutional arrangements of the
established order imparts an anti-capitalist tendency to the gay
struggle, even if many of its participants fail to recognize the
underlying social and political implications of their challenge."
Does the Political Committee recognize the important distinction
between the concept of discrimination and oppression? From John’s report
we are led to believe that the terms can be used interchangeably, which
is not true. Discrimination is the practice of employing prejudicial
judgment against minorities on the basis of their supposed inferiority.
But gay oppression is reflected not only in the discrimination and
persecution directed against persons who are either known or suspected
to be gay, but also in the pervasive efforts of this system to
completely suppress homosexuality even before it may arise, and to
threaten violators with severe reprisals. The effects of this oppression
are felt on a much wider scale than merely among those who admit,
whether to themselves or publicly, to being gay.
As Novack pointed out, the tendency in the epoch of imperialist decay
is not toward more democratic rights being granted, but a retreat in
this process. As John Riddell said in "A New Period in Canadian
Politics," printed in Labor Challenge. "In today’s conditions of
growing crisis, it is more and more difficult to convince big business
that it can grant any reforms at all." This is not to underestimate the
importance of democratic rights in the revolutionary process, or to say
that certain rights won’t be won.
As well, what indications are there that capitalism is capable or
willing to grant full gay liberation? The entire experience of the gay
movement in Canada and Quebec since 1971 has illustrated that capitalism
is reluctant to even grant the most minimal concessions — and then only
as a result of the persistent mobilization of gays.
Nature of homosexuality
The next point I want to deal with is on the nature of homosexuality.
Can the League reaffirm its approach to the nature of homosexuality? The
PC says no, and adds that it was wrong for us to take such an approach
in the past.
Our view is summed up in a passage under the heading "The Marxist
Approach to Homosexuality" in the 1971 Plenum Report: "For Marxists, the
question of sexual repression and homosexuality is not new. The
materialist view of homosexuality has been very clear. Homosexuality is
not a perversion, not a disease but a form of human sexuality." This
flows from our rejection of the notions that homosexuality is a
"perverted", "sick", "sinful", "unnatural" or "deviant" form of
behavior.
However, the PC believes that we must retreat from the 1971 approach
in order to say nothing whatsoever. On the contrary not only should this
statement be reaffirmed, in the long-term it must be amplified and
elaborated upon in order to aid in the development of a Marxist analysis
of sexuality. Some may scoff and claim this is not a "political"
question. But the repression of homosexual behavior and the movement
that has flourished to destroy it are very political questions.
On the one hand, the PC claims to reject the notion that gays are
sick, yet on the other hand it states that the movement should take no
"stand" on the nature of homosexuality. Yet in our society,
homosexuality is branded an illness, and it is one of the main
"justifications" for the oppression of homosexually-oriented persons.
How can the Statement seriously propose to leave open the question of
the nature of homosexuality and in the same breath claim to reject "with
contempt" the idea that it is an illness?
What does the Statement have in mind with the concept of the "value"
of homosexuality? Does this mean that it wishes to suspend judgment on
whether homosexuality can be a positive factor in the lives of gays,
rather than something to be ashamed of, denied, and suppressed? Does it
mean to suggest that in the face of a gay person’s assertion that it is
better to openly and proudly accept one’s homosexuality than to hide and
force oneself into a constricting heterosexual mold, revolutionists
should stand by silently, or note that we have no opinion?
This is not a matter of taking a stand on personal tastes. Personal
tastes have nothing whatsoever to do with this. What is involved is a
recognition of historical and scientific fact, as well as an expression
of solidarity with the central thrust of gay liberation, which is to
bring about a society in which exclusive heterosexuality is no longer
the norm.
The 1971 position means that homosexuality is a component of the
human sexual continuum — that homosexuality is not abnormal. It was
doing nothing more. In fact, the very essence of gay liberation is
predicated on the rejection of the un-materialist and anti-sexual notion
that homosexuality is an illness, and an affirmation that gay is just as
good as straight.
In other words, we can say that homosexuality is within the range of
normalcy in the human animal and is therefore a legitimate component of
human sexual behavior. However, of course, we don’t vote on the findings
of Kinsey or other sexologists on whom we base our analysis, or impose
centralism on their conclusions.
It is also true to say that there are other possibilities for
theories relating to homosexuality. There are reactionary theories,
conservative theories, liberal theories as well as the beginnings of
materialist theories. But for the Political Committee to say that the
League should not reaffirm the materialist view of homosexuality is a
retreat, and a very serious error.
Exclusive heterosexual norm
The PC is also not sure that one of the long-term goals of the gay
movement is the elimination of the exclusive heterosexual norm. This
concept is simply the summation of what gay oppression is based on — the
forced channeling of people into one exclusive form of sexual behavior,
which is codified in law and perpetuated by every major institution.
This norm is reinforced by all the institutions of capitalist society,
beginning with the family, and continues in the schools and churches.
Individuals who refuse to conform to this norm can be threatened with
jail, physical extermination or mutilation. Thus no one is permitted
free sexual choice under our society. The norm is deeply rooted in the
evolution of the Judeo-Christian ethic, but we don’t have time to go
into that.
The implication of the destruction of the exclusive heterosexual norm
is that this forced channeling would cease, that individuals could
freely choose their sexual preference without any social restriction.
The elimination of such a compulsory norm, which has existed for
centuries, would not mean the imposition of an exclusive homosexual norm
or any other irrational norm, but that sexuality could be divorced from
procreation. The enormous potential of human sexuality would finally be
unleashed.
Nobody should demean this goal on the spurious grounds that it is not
"political" in the strict sense of the word. The fact is that the
elimination of this norm is an objective precondition for full
homosexual liberation. In the same sense we say that one of the
objective pre-requisites for the construction of socialism is the
abolition of private property and capital.
It is difficult to read the Statement, with its repetitive stressing
of the fact that the revolutionary party is a political organization,
without coming away with the feeling that it intends to suggest that
there is something inherently apolitical, cultural, or countercultural
about gay liberation. Without ever directly stating so, it manages to
imply that the gay liberation struggle, by its very nature, raises
issues that the League should avoid, steer clear of, and indeed that
these issues pose such a danger for the movement that it must go out of
its way to make clear that it avoids and steers clear of them. So
serious is this danger that to take a position on them would risk
narrowing its appeal and crippling its ability to mobilize the masses.
Clearly, there is something about gay liberation that is seen as posing
a threat to the movement’s ability to carry out its tasks—a threat that
the Statement warns against in terms one cannot imagine being invoked in
regard to any other struggle of the oppressed.
In what does this threat lie? Apparently in the insistence of the gay
liberation movement that the exclusive heterosexual norm of society
represents a distortion of human sexuality and that homosexuality is not
inferior to heterosexuality. It no doubt also lies in the fact that this
insistence of the gay liberation movement is being advanced within the
revolutionary movement by comrades such as ourselves, who regard it as a
crucial question, the answer to which will determine the nature of the
relationship the movement will have toward this struggle. We believe
this threat to be imaginary.
We would simply be deluding ourselves and gay militants if we thought
that a civil rights perspective was sufficient for the gay struggle. A
transitional approach to this struggle is premised. on the need to
construct a bridge between the struggles to eliminate the most blatant
forms of gay oppression and the long-term goals of complete homosexual
liberation. A correct perspective on the need to eliminate the
heterosexual norm can hasten the process of gay concluding that they
need to throw their lot in with the working class in the struggle for
socialism.
Saying that the elimination of this norm is a precondition for gay
liberation is also not an attempt to predetermine what sexual behavior
would be like after a successful socialist revolution. No one knows the
answer. We can be sure that it will be free from repressive attitudes
and compulsory norms. But sexual liberation will only come if the
revolutionary vanguard inscribes it onto its banner before, during, and
after a socialist revolution. Otherwise, there will be no sexual
revolution.
Gay pride and ‘Gay Is Good’
We now come to a point which potentially could, and I hope won’t,
become a lavender herring in the discussion — here I am referring to the
question of our attitude to gay pride and the concept "Gay is Good." The
Political Committee says that if we solidarize with gay pride we then
solidarize with its manifestations. Yet they equivocate and add the
disclaimer that providing we stay "clearly away from" the concept "Gay
is Good."
It is true to say that "Gay is Good" equals gay pride, while also
meaning other things. In our 1973 Political Resolution we correctly
noted that : "Gay Pride’ announces that homosexuality is a significant
and legitimate component of human sexuality."
The concept "Gay is Good" or "Gay is Just as Good as Straight" means
that homosexuality is not better and not worse than heterosexuality— it
is simply a fact. It is a message to the entire world that homosexuality
is neither criminal nor abnormal, as society tries so hard to portray
it. It is a profound message to closeted gays —imploring them to be
proud of their homosexuality, to come out of the closet of centuries of
oppression and join the struggle for a sex-positive society. In essence
it is a profound expression of gay pride, just as "Black is Beautiful"
is an affirmation of the pride of Black people.
The concept of coming out is also an aspect of this discussion. In
"Gay Liberation: The Need for a Socialist Perspective" this was
explained as the following: "The immeasurable emotional toll taken by
constant deception (often accompanied by a painful lack of self-respect)
alone is just not worth it. The most obvious advantage of all is that
the more people who are open the easier it becomes for those still in
the closet to come out. It need not be argued that collective political
struggle is more important. Of course it is. But unfortunately or not,
for Gay people coming out is often a prerequisite. It is hard to remain
in the closet and still march down the street chanting ‘Gay Rights
Now’."
"Gay is Good" is a statement affirming the positive nature of
homosexuality against the predominant bourgeois viewpoint. It demands
the acceptance by society of gays as completely equal human beings.
For these reasons we are recommending that the Statement be amended
to read that we express our solidarity with the growth of gay pride, and
with its contemporary and popular expression embraced in the affirmative
slogan "Gay is Good." We want to once again underline and clearly state,
however, that this slogan is not up for a vote.
Our proposal for the vote
This in turn raises the question of what is the nature of our
amendments. First of all, they don’t represent a hidden or overt
counter-statement. In fact, our purpose in drafting the amendments was
to aid in the clarification and improvement of a basically very good
Statement drafted by the PC. Our recommendation is that the Central
Committee vote on the general line of the Proposed Amendments, in the
view of strengthening our movement’s analysis of and approach to the gay
liberation movement, and the general line of this report.
Conclusion
In conclusion we want to emphasize that the willingness of the
Political Committee to embrace a number of amendments, coupled with the
process of convergence represents a step forward for our movement in
this arena. At the same time, however, the fact that the PC has argued
that the movement must either retreat from, or not reaffirm, some basic
acquisitions of our movement’s analysis of gay oppression and liberation
represents a step backward.
We should also underscore that the points in dispute are not simply
over minor tactical questions — they concern fundamental questions of
theory and analysis for our intervention in the gay movement. This is
why the very function of our amendments is to improve the Statement’s
analysis in the interest of a more correct analysis, which can rally gay
militants to the Trotskyist movement. In the long-run the ultimate test
of experience will show who’s analysis is correct and who’s is not. That
we can be sure of.
But this Plenum is not by any means the end of the discussion on gay
liberation. While the bulletin may be closed and the discussion formally
terminated, it still proceeds. It goes on because political clarity on
many fronts has yet to be achieved. This Plenum is one step further to
that task. The many different questions still left unanswered, and the
great interest in the gay liberation topic is a further indication of
the objective necessity for a more complete gay liberation resolution at
our next convention. Such a resolution could, for example, round out the
Statement’s important, but by and large superficial, analysis of the gay
movement and homosexual oppression.
The discussion in our movement over the past five years on this
question has made considerable progress, but as I think is evident to
all, is far from being conclusive. The simple fact is that the League
still has not gone through a real discussion on gay liberation.
We hope that the discussion here today will help further the crucial
process of clarification and convergence. In line with this we think the
Political Committee should consider publishing the report from the PC as
well as this one in an internal bulletin. In addition, we are suggesting
that in the interest of popularizing our movement’s position on gay
liberation, that extracts of the adopted Statement be made public,
either through an article or perhaps a pamphlet.
The contemporary gay liberation movement needs not only our activists
and our organizational skills, but most importantly it needs our program
— a program for winning full gay liberation in the framework of a
strategy for over-throwing this decadent system. The discussion of gay
liberation and socialism is not some sterile sectarian "in" debate. Many
left organizations are innovatively attempting to grapple with it, as
are more and more leading gay militants who can be won to our movement.
Gay activists need a materialist scientific analysis to explain their
oppression and the road to their liberation. Only the LSA /LSO can
provide such a perspective.
The elaboration of a Marxist analysis of the roots and origins of gay
oppression is a major challenge before the international Trotskyist
movement. This Plenum here today takes us one step further toward that
all-important goal.
[ Top ] [
Next ] [
Documents Index ]
