Anti-LGBT Laws in Africa: Expressions of the Crisis

www.workersalternative.com

On 2/13/14 the Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan announced the passage of tough restrictions on not just gay marriage, but outlawed all homosexual activity and even went so far as to criminalize membership or participation in gay organizations. This was followed shortly after by the government of Uganda strengthening its already harsh anti-gay laws, which also contain language criminalizing the "promotion of homosexuality" Both these governments, as well as western critics have attempted to lay the blame for this discrimination on African culture, but this claim is frankly laughable. Many countries in Africa are controlled by authoritarian right-wing leaders who cloak their capitalist and pro-imperialist policies under the guise of national liberation, anti-imperialism, or even "African Socialism". Crackdowns on homosexuality are justified as "anti-imperialist" measures by the claim that homosexuality is un-African, being a form of decadence brought to Africa by European colonialists, but this claim holds no weight at all. Homosexuality is a natural variation in human behavior, and is found in Africa just as it is found anywhere else. There even exist many traditions of homosexuality particular to Africa. The formal restoration of Democracy in Uganda and Nigeria has not changed this policy substantially. The political structure still remains corrupt, authoritarian in structure, and deeply connected to imperialism.

Behind all the talk about protecting African traditions, there is a technique which is not at all new. Scapegoating has a long history in both dictatorships, and the bourgeois Democratic world - if the people of Uganda and Nigeria are raised in to a homophobic rage, it is hoped by the ruling cliques that the people will be satisfied by this and will forget about the desperate economic situation and oppression which they live under every day. Nigeria and Uganda are not poor countries, this is a gross lie that has been perpetuated by Western Imperialism, they are in fact very rich in natural resources - Nigeria is full of vast mineral wealth, and fossil fuel deposits. Uganda is home to rich soils, and also has fossil energy reserves. It is not the poverty of the country which is to blame - the economy has been growing steadily in both countries, but the wealth has gone to the Comprador bourgeois and companies form Imperialist countries, rather than to fulfill the needs of the poor and working classes. The crisis of worldwide capitalism has left both of these African countries at risk of economic collapse. Both economies are based around a small number of resources which are produced for the export market - Nigerian oil, and Ugandan agricultural products. Small fluctuations in the prices of these commodities have huge effects on the economy, and can push an already impoverished population over the edge. The ruling classes of Nigeria and Uganda fear what will happen if the masses are forced to take up struggle for their livelihoods. It is this that motivates the fake democrats in Uganda and Nigeria, not their love of "African culture".

In the United States, the rights of LGBT people have been used in much the same way, though the results have not been quite as extreme. Very few people are going to deny that the use of anti-LGBT sentiment is a weapon in the arsenal of the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party also makes uses of the rights of LGBT people for their own cynical purposes. When President Obama was at risk of falling behind Mitt Romney during the last election cycle, he was able to produce a huge jump in the polls by suddenly having a change of heart in favor of same-sex marriage. Much more insidious was the way that New York Democrats used their support of the Marriage Equality Act in 2011 as a way to maintain support and portray a progressive image, while simultaneously attacking the benefits of public sector workers throughout the state. Marxists do not believe that human rights are a bargaining chip to be used by cynical bourgeois politicians in order to attack the working class. In Africa, as in the United States the only way to liberate the LGBT community from oppression is to fight for Socialist policies, and to take the power of life and death out of the hands of corrupt leaders and bourgeois politicians. To put the lives of working people in their own hands: Regardless of nationality, sexual orientation, or gender identity/expression.

The intelligent peoples of the African continent shall find their own ways to fight for their liberation - I do not have the knowledge necessary, or the right to prescribe them a path for this - but here in the U.S., the heart of imperialism, the way forward is clear. The working class of this country does not have a party of its own. The only working-class mass organizations that we have are the trade unions, but these are powerless to fight for the demands of working people while tied to the Democratic Party. Only by fighting for trade union independence, and a Mass Party of Labor based on a socialist program, can we look towards a more just and democratic society, and crush the imperialism that keeps our brothers and sisters in Africa in poverty, while they live in some of the wealthiest lands on the planet.

Western Liberals Supporting Fascism In Ukraine?

Liberal coffee shop types around the world are pouring out their bleeding hearts in defense of the Ukrainian opposition. One would think that these people would take the time to figure out exactly what they are supporting before opening their mouths so widely - but as usual, they have chosen to not let facts get in the way of a good story. The lack of a class analysis has led them to conclude that any movement against a dictatorship must be progressive, but I suppose this this isn’t so surprising when these people think that western-style Liberal capitalism is the end of history, towards which all other people are progressing.

Amidst the widespread romanticization of the Ukranian opposition it can get difficult to find out the real facts about what is going on. This is also painfully obvious when it comes to the way that the Venezuelan opposition is being presented to the world at this point in time, but that’s a story for another article. If these friends of the opposition did their homework they would know that:

1. The Opposition has been infiltrated by Fascists.

And not only are they present at demonstrations, they have largely hijacked them. The original student and labor groups who were protesting against the corruption and heavy-handedness of the Yanukovych regime have been either become burned out by the presence of fascists in their ranks, or have been forced out by Fascist violence. Labor and Socialist groups have found themselves excluded from the movement, and their voices have been replaced by slogans calling for pogroms against Jews, the LGBT community and communists. Jewish leaders have even called for Jews to try to flee Kyiv, or even the country so that they do not become victims of attacks by the extreme right-wing. The Communist Party, despite its mixed-up ideology and Stalinist attachments, has to its credit started to mobilize people into Anti-Fascist militias in order to protect themselves, and their communities.  Standing in opposition to both Yanukovych and the Fascists, this project could lead to a huge qualitive change in the situation, but not unless the Communist Party is able to gain the support of the wider labor movement, and other groups on the left.

Members of the Communist Party of Ukraine march through Kyiv during a recent demonstration.
© Pavlo Podufalov (kyivpost.com)

2. Imperialist Games Abound

Western Imperialism has never had any scruples about intervening to hijack popular movements, and Ukraine is no exception. It does not seem to be an accident that the events have been presented to the world as a people struggling to join the European Union against the wishes of the Pro-Moscow government, but things are not quite so simple. It is true that many people in the country, particularly the youth, look towards to EU as a possible way out of political corruption and the capitalist crisis, but as Greece and other failing economies in the Eurozone have shown, this is a pipe dream. Popular discontent aside though, this movement has led to a split in the capitalist class between those who want to continue to ally themselves to Russian imperialism, and to grow rich from Russian investment - and those who wish to align themselves with the west, in the hopes of higher western investment. This has not escaped the eyes of the two imperialist blocs, and the Western imperialists have decisively backed the opposition, including its most extreme elements, such as the Fascist “Right Sector” and Svoboda. Russia seems to have been hoping that past aid to the government would allow it to either crush the opposition, or come to a compromise. What will come of this remains to be seen, as Yanukovych has been deposed, and information about his current location is uncertain.

'

John McCain meeting with leaders of the Fascist "Svoboda" party on  Dec. 14, 2013
(Source:www.businessinsider.com)

GREECE ON THE BRINK THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM AND THE SOCIALIST SOLUTION

The International Marxist Tendency has recently released a neat little documentary on the crisis in Greece, and the proposed way forward - I definitely suggest it to anyone who is unsure what to think of the situation there. And of course, you can always find additional analysis at the IMT website In Defense of Marxism at www.marxist.com.

More on the documentary: http://greeceonthebrink.com/

Communist Platform of SYRIZA
http://www.marxismos.com/

On Equality: Them and Us.

The average person has no shortage of misconceptions about Marxism and Socialism. There are of course, the obvious ones: The conflation of Marxism and Stalinism, Socialism and the capitalist Welfare state. Perhaps just as wide-spread is another claim. Pro-capitalist education has propagandized the idea that Marxists are concerned only in an abstract notion of “equality”, and that this is an ideal from which we attempt to create a “utopia”. The liberal intellectuals are quick to “defend” the Marxists with the claim that “communism is a good idea, it just doesn’t work”. What wonderful “friends” these are who think we are small children!

Equality as an ideal

From where does the “utopia of equality” arise? Those very same liberals who are quick to accuse us of well-meaning idealism would do well to look to their own history. The rise of the bourgeois class was accompanied by the development of radical new ideas. The American revolution declared the triumph of “god-given rights“, while the great bourgeois revolution in France raised the banner of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”, and proclaimed the triumph of reason and the rights of man. These ideas were undeniably progressive for their time, but they were also held back by the constraints of idealist philosophy, and the bourgeois world-view. To the revolutionary bourgeois, these new ideas justified their right to rule, and also gave them a moral justification for private property, and the bourgeois-Democratic Republic. To these radical liberals “equality” was mostly a matter of “equality under  the law”, but even this was not something completely realizable under a system of private property. As the great French author Anatole France would put it: “The poor must labor in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Utopian Socialism

It is true that the early Socialists were utopians - they were guided by an idealist philosophy which convinced them that Socialism would succeed simply because it was desirable, or because equality was a noble ideal that was pleasing to god, or part of the nature of man. Men such as Robert Owen, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier were geniuses who were very much ahead of their time - they were inspired by the social upheaval and revolutionary movements of the time, and the radical philosophical and social ideas which this upheaval had given birth to. Despite their genius, these individuals were members of the bourgeois and aristocratic classes. Their idealist philosophy meant that they were unable to look at the motor forces of history in a scientific manner. Their lack of any scientific perspective led them to attempt building their ideal society through a policy of class collaboration and persuasion.

Petit-Bourgeois ideas

The rise of capitalism was at the time, the most progressive series of events in human history. Industry and trade were no longer restrained by the limits feudalism had imposed on it, and the means of production were constantly revolutionized in order to keep competitive - leading to never before seen advances in the standard of living. Of course, not everyone could be a large capitalist. The rise of monopolies threatened the livelihood of the petit-bourgeois - the middle class peasants, the small-capitalists, and the state bureaucrats. This class feels threatened by both the big capitalists, and by the socialist revolution - leading to it developing ideas which stress class collaboration, and the protection of their way of life. Often this takes the form of Anarchism, or forms of populism which call for the “Equalization of the classes”. Something which Marxism considers to be a utopian fantasy, and essentially reactionary.

Scientific Socialism

The Marxist view of History

We have already shown the relationship between bourgeois ideology, and utopian ideas regarding equality - but what of Marxism? Surely equality is it’s highest ideal! This is in fact, far from the truth. Marxism is often called the “real movement” because it is the only political movement to base itself off of a scientific, and materialist study of society - rather than a preconceived ideal. Marx was not just the founder of Scientific Socialism, but also the first person to apply the Hegelian dialectic in a materialist manner. This materialist dialectic is a brilliant tool that allows us to much better understand the world. The application of this dialectic to human history, or “historical materialism” led Marx to conclude that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” No longer was it necessary to try to explain history as the result of the actions of great personalities, or as pre-ordained by god - it was now possible to subject history to real scientific study. The Marxist view of history holds that all historical forms of social organization (with the exception of pre-historical tribalism) are based on the rule of an owning class, which lived entirely off of the labor of the toiling class. (Whether slave, serf, or proletarian). It also holds that in each society there are contradictions which will invariably lead to its replacement by a new form of social organization which will further the development of productive forces.

The Specific Characteristics of Capitalism

Despite what many have been led to believe, Marxists do not “hate” capitalism on principle, nor do they believe that “capitalists are evil”: In fact, Marxists recognize capitalism as the most progressive of all historical social systems. Capitalist competition created never before seen revolutionization in the productive forces, and led to increased globalization on a scale which was far beyond anything that could be imagined under feudalism or slavery.There are those today who are quick to proclaim the “end of history” - the perfection of human society incarnated in modern capitalism, and the bourgeois-Democratic Republic. What these propagandists do not take into account, is that capitalism also has its share of contradictions. In Fact, along with the historic advances that capitalism brought over all other systems, it brought contradictions much sharper than at any other point in history.

Capitalist society is divided into two main classes: The bourgeois capitalist class who own property, and the proletarian who owns only their own ability to work. Because he/she lacks capital, the proletarian must sell his labor to the capitalist for a wage. The capitalist buys this labor (variable capital), and invests in machines, equipment, and raw materials (constant capital) in order to produce goods or services for sale on the free market. The capitalist is only able to turn a profit by ensuring that the value of wages paid to the laborer is much lower than the total value of the goods produced - it is this that leads to capitalism’s most dangerous contradiction. As mentioned before, Marxists do not criticize capitalism simply out of disdain for exploitation or injustice - but because it is not capable of fulfilling human needs, and is inherently unstable.

      The reason for this inherent instability lies in precisely the same economic transaction which allows it to work in the first place: The capitalist is forced to pay the worker only a small portion of the value of the products he produces. This leads to an unavoidable disparity between the number of products on the market, and the amount of money which can be spent on these products. The working class cannot afford to buy back all of the products which it has produced, leaving many of these products unsold - leading to a loss for the capitalist. This loss may temporarily be averted through the use of credit, but only at the cost of a much deeper crisis down the road.
The Proletarian Revolution

Marxists hold that this contradiction will ultimately lead to the radicalization of the proletariat, and the replacement of capitalism with the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. While it is easy to understand why someone could confuse this term as implying a totalitarian autocracy, the term actually has its origin in the belief that the working class must necessarily take over state power in order to expropriate capitalist industry, democratically plan the economy, and defend against capitalist counter-revolution. This “dictatorship” does not “equalize the classes”, but in fact abolishes them. Friedrich Engels wrote extensively on this concept in “Anti-Duhring”:

““The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. “Shall all people in a workers’ state receive the same wage?The simple answer: No, socialism does not demand the equalization of all wages to the level of being identical. What it does require, however, is that an equal wage be paid for work of equal value. Money is not something which can be abolished overnight, and even if the democratic planning of the economy has raised the productive forces to never before imagined levels, it may for a time be necessary to allocate goods through the use of money. If not equality, what is the goal of Scientific Socialism?The goal of scientific socialism is the liberation of the proletariat from wage slavery, and the development of society to a higher level. Rather than an abstract notion that “All should be equal”, the Marxists instead say that all individuals must be able to pursue their own interests and self-development with absolute freedom. In the words of Marx:

“In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”  No man or woman shall be deprived of the right to enrich themselves, but only of the right to enrich themselves off of the labor of others.”

By providing for each individual to have the time, and the means to pursue their own interests, we open up the path for expansion of culture and technology in ways which have never before been imagined. How many great philosophers or scientists shall we find, who under capitalism would never have discovered their true potential? The internal contradictions of the capitalist system are already causing unrest and revolutionary upheaval around the world. The question is not whether the working class will rise up against the system, but whether there will be a capable revolutionary leadership which can lead this movement to victory. The International Marxist Tendency and its U.S. section, the Workers International League are dedicated to building this revolutionary leadership. The United States will be the most decisive battleground in the world revolution, and only a Mass Party of Labor with a Marxist analysis and Socialist Program can lead the revolutionary masses to victory.

A few general definitions, and a short statement of where I stand.

Very often I am forced to respond to a large number of straw man attacks, or misconceptions regarding my beliefs, and political positions. I'm making a short, and general outline so that I can direct detractors here instead of wasting my time with superfluous explanation.

First some explanation of terms and concepts: 

• Labor: Working people are the source of all wealth in the world. Even naturally occurring resources cannot be used for human needs unless someone has expended the time and energy necessary to put these resources in a usable form. Working people (The Proletariat) do not have ownership over productive property, and are obliged out of necessity to sell their labor power in order to survive. Capitalist profits are derived from the difference in what is paid to a worker in wages, and the value of the total products or services generated by the worker. 

• Over-Production and Crisis:The same means by which capitalism produces profits, is the very reason for economic crisis. The disparity between what is paid to workers, and total production prevents the working class from being able to afford all the products which have been produced by the market. Effective demand will always fall behind actual demand, and supply unless extended by credit - which is a temporary fix, which leads to a more exacerbated crisis down the road (as debt forces working people to decrease consumption even more).  
• 
  
• Socialism: This is a word which is thrown around by people of many political stripes, with very different and contradictory meanings. To a Marxist, the only valid meaning is that of a system in which production is controlled by the working class, in a democratic manner. There can be disagreements about exact implementation (Whether through representatives, direct democracy, workers' cooperatives, or voluntary associations) but Marxist socialists as a whole believe that this system must be democratic, expropriate major industry, and plan production in a rational manner in order to meet human wants and needs.

• Communism: 

Communism is another word which is often thrown around with different meanings - usually the mainstream conception is highly influenced by Stalinism - Giving a bleak view of a Bureaucratic dictatorship. Another slightly less common conception which has some currency in pop culture is that of the "Hippie Commune", a Utopian community which cuts itself off from the rest of the world, and usually endorses ideas such as pacifism, community-oriented activity, and libertarian views on personal behavior. (Such as toleration and promotion of drug use). The standpoint of Marxists (excluding some Stalinist sects) is that Communism is neither of these things, but a hypothetical stage of human society in which Socialist planning has increased production to such levels that scarcity and social classes are abolished, and the state ceases to exist in any recognizable form. The definition does not necessarily exclude the existence of government (as democratic institutions of economic planning), but rather the "state" in the Marxist definition of "Armed bodies of men" - a coercive force by which one class in society oppresses another.

• Now a bit on my own personal positions:
• Trotskyism: 

 Leon Trotsky was one of the main leaders of the October Revolution (And the leader of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War). In addition to this, Trotsky was one of the main opponents to the rise of Stalinism on both the Russian and International stage. What Trotskyism really means, is the continuation of Marxism and Leninism in opposition to Stalinism and other ideologies which arose from bureaucratic counter-revolution in post-Capitalist states. Trotskyists tend to emphasize democracy, workers' control, Internationalism, and United Fronts of workers' organizations when fighting against Fascism or other forms of dictatorship. (As opposed to the Stalinist "Popular Front", which included pro-Capitalist Liberals)

• Feminism and Women's Liberation: Although I tend not to describe myself as a Feminist (I prefer Pro-Feminist) I do recognize that women's rights must be fought for both for the cause of Socialism, and as an end in themselves. This should not however, be taken to mean that I am a supporter of what is often called feminism in popular culture - that being separatism, "misandry" (or rather, the idea that men are the direct cause of patriarchy), or the focus solely on reproductive rights. Inequality between men and women has its historical genesis in the rise of property, and true equality between men and women is not possible under a system of private property. This does not mean that gender equality will come about magically under socialism. The only way for gender and sexual liberation to be realized is for women to take a direct and leading role in revolutionary movements. Sexism and heterosexism exist even in Leftist circles, and the best way to fight against these trends is to have strong women involved in the movement - simultaneously giving a great example to other women, and serving to enrich the discussion and theory around liberation.
• 
  
• Queer Politics and Liberation: I am a committed Ally to Queer causes, not because I am gay - I'm not - but because queer people (especially trans*, and queer people of color - who are not even readily defended by all other queer identifying people) are the group in society which is still given the fewest legal protections. Despite what right-wingers might maintain, it is truly a moot point whether or not queer people choose to be attracted to someone with the same chromosome combination as them, or if gender identity is determined at birth. Same-sex relationships and trans* people expressing their identity in the way that they are most comfortable does nothing to cause harm to society. Heterosexism on the other hand, has a long history of creating violence, mental and emotional pain, dividing working people, and robbing countless people of their rights - and even their lives.
   Unfortunately, The leadership of many Queer organizations is Pro-Capitalist, wealthy, white, and often times even sexist, racist, and transphobic. Just as is the case with the feminist movement - It's not just a question of formal equality, the rights of Queer people will not be safe until all people are free to express their own identity under their own terms. Real Liberation in this sphere, like all others, requires the end of the capitalist system which subjects trans* people to homelessness and murder, and the queer community as a whole to second-class citizenship.

• Race: Racism is not just the dislike or discrimination of an individual based on their skin color, it is the systemic oppression of people of color by the capitalist system, government force, and white supremacist cultural norms. We cannot "move past" racism simply by changing the minds of racists - This is because capitalism, and modern society was built on the back of slavery, genocide, and is to this day propped up by the super-exploitation of people of color. White Supremacy serves the dual purpose of perpetuating and normalizing racism in general consciousness, and of convincing white workers that they are not oppressed because they hold a privileged position in relation to non-whites. Identity Politics offer no road out for people of color - they teach that people of color must unite on the basis of skin color, or language (regardless of class) in order to struggle for national demands. Nationalist groups of this kind will often have radical rhetoric, but they fail to confront capitalism because much of the leadership is itself drawn from more privileged classes. Oppressed people of color have some of the most devastating experiences of capitalist exploitation, and have the potential (and often are) great leaders of revolutionary movements. 
• 
  
• Intersectionality Race, gender, sexuality, and class do not exist in a vacuum separate from each other. People who are members of multiple minority groups will often find themselves both exploited to a higher degree, and often cut unrepresented by the organizations which claim to represent the minorities they belong to. A big example being the treatment of Queer people of color - They are under-represented, and often ostracized in both queer organizations, and in organizations made up of other people of color. A similar thing happens often to transgender people in the wider LGBT movement - the movement will focus on the issues of the cisgender (and white) majority, while ignoring, or potentially even sabotaging transgender issues in order to assimilate in to heteronormative institutions. The liberal middle-class leadership focuses on "equality", at the expense of liberation - of allowing people to define their own needs, identity, and relationship to society.

• Religion: I am an unapologetic Atheist, and I very much agree with Marx on the old saying "Religion is the Opium of the People". The problem of course, is that people rarely look in to the context of this statement. This is important because Marx viewed religion as something which was a result of people trying to rationalize their exploitation i-and deal with the pain that society inflicts upon them. Religious people aren't stupid, nor are they inherently reactionary - This is why Lenin's stance was not that people should be forced to disavow religion, but that religion must be a personal issue, and not even mentioned in official documents. Lenin was also of the opinion that religious workers must be organized as well, not on the basis of their religion, but of their class position. The majority of people in this country are religious, so any change in the system is going to require the participation of large numbers of religious people - and they should be welcomed with open arms. Many of these people will come to their own conclusions throughout time. Atheist propaganda on the part of the Bolsheviks had a very definite role - not to force people to abandon religion as an end in itself, but to break the power of the Orthodox Church which was deeply intertwined with the state, was a huge property owner, and a supporter of Fascist reaction. (Such as the anti-Semitic and Anti-Communist Black Hundreds pogromists)

Ecology, and Eco-Socialism: I consider myself to be an Eco-Socialist for two reasons: 1. The capitalist system is responsible for an environmental crisis which requires decisive action to reverse it.2. In modern times, any program of Socialist economic planning must recognize that the environment is important for the long-term survival of the species, I am of the opinion that the environment and non-human animals have their own rights as well - but the central issue is this - either we have a rational economic plan which strives to protect the environment in addition to providing for more immediate human needs, or else the survival of the human species, and even the planet, is not guaranteed in the long-run. 

• Weapons, Self-Defense, and Violence There can be no moral equivalency between the violence of the oppressed, and the violence of the oppressor. The marginalized have the right to defend themselves, even with lethal means if necessary. Gun control is also a matter of class, and race - Gun control laws have a history of being used for the disarmament of working-people and people of color in order to perpetuate the rule of the capitalist class, and white supremacy. This does not mean that I think everyone should have a gun just for the hell of it, but I do believe that efforts must be taken to stop the capitalist state from enforcing its monopoly on arms and violence, the best way to do this is of course by training the the masses of people in the use of arms in an organized manner, ideally through the trade unions - as was often a practice in the past. Unless the masses of working people know how to defend themselves against tyranny, it is impossible to talk about moving beyond the need for police forces, and state violence.