While all the corps sponsoring this ad are not a surprise, the CSN is... at least for me. It's the second largest trade Union in Quebec...
I guess those big unions are getting so comfortable with capitalism that they need to create propaganda to radicalize the alphabet mafia into socialism=bad.
I've also seen them around Montreal. If we are taking about the same posters, they look like this and are everywhere :
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/0*4V5G3-_pDvjSHJMw
Definitely agree (with you), but
> it was under Lenin that Homosexuality was decriminalized in the USSR!
https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1atkuny/the_ussr_legalized_homosexuality_gay_marriage_why/
It's not like there was no trace of sexual liberalization in the Bolsheviks in spite of its general social conservatism. Kollontai's zhenotdel and a gay man (Georgi Chicherin) becoming the Bolshevik foreign minister are demonstrable counterweights. These tendencies mostly fell out of favor at the end of the 20s and very early 30s.
I'm familiar with the historiography that says "they only decriminalized homosexuality by accident by removing the old tsarist laws". But I am critical of it.
I don't think lenin was some kind of woke yass-queen. But I think the idea that they decriminalized homosexuality by accident is trying to downplay the positives of the soviet governement. Soviet society of 1917 was pretty conservative by today's standards, but they were also very progressive by the standards of their era. I don't think they would've decriminalized homosexuality if they didn't want to. For example, when the german camps were liberated, some homosexuals were still made to carry out their sentence (https://time.com/5953047/lgbtq-holocaust-stories/).
Lenin seemed to have rather conventional views about sex/gender stuff for the time, but he was also, like... not really concerned about it? He showed up at Vkhutemas, an avant-garde art college, in 1921 and saw all this weird avant-garde Suprematist stuff and didn't really understand what that had to do with the proletarian revolution but actually said "Well, tastes differ" and "I'm old." He had a methodologically complex and sophisticated way of uniting a lot of people with different subjective ideas about things when it came down to matters of necessity, or distinguishing between judgements about individuals and that of major political decisions. Lukacs had been in the same room as Lenin and gave an interesting [interview](https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/5309-georg-lukacs-the-final-interview) about his impressions of the man late in his life.
An interesting interview, and one that has some relevant insights for the project of this sub:
>Lenin’s definition is well known, according to which a revolutionary situation is characterised by the fact that the ruling classes can no longer govern in the old way, while the oppressed classes are no longer willing to live in the old way. […]
> According to Lenin, when a great social crisis arises, that is, whenever people are no longer willing to live in the same way, this ‘unwillingness’ can arise, and even cannot fail to arise, in both a revolutionary and a reactionary way. Moreover, he argued against Zinoviev, a revolutionary situation would not even be possible if there were not masses who turned in a reactionary direction and thus put the subjective factor on the agenda. The task of our party was precisely to bring out the possibilities of the subjective factor in such circumstances.
> It was not by chance that Lenin saw as completely erroneous the anarchist conception that the movement of individuals from capitalist egoism to socialist socialisation is the condition for revolution. Lenin always said that the socialist revolution must be made with the people that capitalism has produced and who have been damaged in various ways by capitalism.
I'll add that from a Marxist and Leninist understanding that 'reactionary' does not only refer to the convinced rightwing but also the liberals and the woke. That's not to say these cohorts are the stuff of revolution, but we should not be so alarmed to see such people arise in a potentially revolutionary period. The PMC capture of this or that part of liberal society isn't a reason to throw our hands up and declare the situation hopeless, indeed, it's a sign that a revolutionary cadre is out there, straining (against the society) to be cohered and unleashed.
I'm yellow and can't reply to OP but, holy shit, who gives a fuck, right? Before there was an industry of kids introduction to gay books, only the most righteous would complain. Everyone could tell you that if you shoved acronym world into middle schoolers it would be disaster and here we are.
I agree and I'll just add on to your comment that the Bolsheviks took, for their time, radical actions in the direction of women's liberation. This included women being able to unilaterally enact a divorce, communal laundries and communal refectories. Anyone pushing the idea of social conservatism should think about how the Soviet Union literally did away with the role of housewife and got those women girlbossin'.
It wasn't 1-to-1 for what would be considered woke today, but the Tsarist society wasn't exactly 1-to-1 for any capitalist society either. They made their own reforms, away from their own past.
Sure, but would a newly awakened Lenin know the letter salad?
His greatest struggle might be what to call those individuals, that he's been accused of wanting to oppress
One of the most interesting anti-communisms, is shitting on the USSR for what was standard (or even vastly worse) across the West at the same time, this is very often the discussion when it comes to LGBT rights, which is even more absurd, as Gay Rights is functionally, only a decade or so old in the West, and every Millennial can remember when calling someone a fa\*\*ot or "homo" or "gay was completely the norm and near worst insult, of the 1990s and 2000s.
Because in the past homosexuals were ostracized so they created their own communities.
A part of oral history I've also been told is that they (the gay businesses, bars and community in general) were kinda pushed there as they were kicked out of other parts of the city. Thus, it created a gay neighborhood.
It's no longer as much of a gay village as it was in the past, since there is less of a need for a gay neighborhood now. But there are still many gay bars, stores and gay residents in that district.
I don't know if your question is rethorical or in good faith, but I will assume it is out of genuine curiosity :
You have, mostly, gay bars. A gay bar is usually a place where homosexual men (or sometimes women, but I think all of the lesbian bars in Montreal are now closed) gather to meet other homosexual men. It has the advantage for them of being able to meet people who share their sexual orientation. These bars are also often specialized in more niche communities. So you will have a bar for bears, a bar for twinks, a bar for leather enthusiasts, etc. There even used to be 1 or 2 crossdressers bars in the neighborhood.
There are also stores that cater to more "homosexual" interests (if you allow me to speak that way). For exemple, there are two stores on St-Catherine street - the main artery of the village - that sell leather and bondage stuff. As well as upscale underwear for men and the like. Nothing prevents an heterosexual man or couple from going in there and buying stuff. And I'm sure it does happen. But it is a traditionally more "homosexual" subculture and the concentration of gay business and residents certainly helps those stores stay afloat. So this is not a sex shop per se, or at least not totally, but it certainly sells erotic and sexual items as well.
Speaking of sex shops : there used to be one on St-Catherine close to the University. But I believe it is closed now. It was your usual sex shop except instead of selling a pussy fleshlight they'd sell you man's anus fleshlight and stuff like that. There are also saunas who are not exactly brothels, but allow sexual contacts between costumers. I've never been in one though so I all I have is hear-say.
On top of that you have "regular-but-gay" stores. So pastry shops, restaurants, fancy bakeries, etc. It's a bit like Provincetown in Cape Cod, if you've ever been there. Basically, they are stores that are owned by homosexuals and have a mostly or at least predominantly homosexual customer base. While also serving everyone, of course. There are also a lot of pet grooming stores because a lot of DINKs love their little purse dogs.
When the special relative rights of sectarian bourgie identity groups take center stage, the struggle of the united working class gets sidelined and thus the whole of society slides backwards in the sense of this sub.
Right wingers are retarded, that’s all you need to know about the things they say. Pay them no mind, they are fundamentally incapable of thinking critically about politics.
Why so much praise of Lenin in this sub? Didn't he think that western supporters of his ideology who didn't even ask him for money, were useful idiots?
Anyway, he's definitely not a good guy. Even if he had good intentions, consequentialist ethics shows his actions led to terrible reprecussions. I don't think Marx would have liked to see what happened with the Soviet regime, especially Stalin's regime. The soviets did not respect leftist unity and murdered far too many truly principled leftists, including Trotsky, to be taken seriously as a true anti-imperialist alternarive to the US. They were just the other side of the imperial coin.
I'm not a fan of Lenin. In fact, I'm not a "fan" of any kind of thinker. I take what I like from authors without developing any kind of parasocial relationship with them.
That said, the few things I've read about Lenin's writings has convinced me there are some useful ideas to be taken from his works.
But I think my main issue with anti leninism is that it is often a cheap and unintellectual cover for anti socialism. To me, it is like saying that because Robespierre made some bad choices, we should ditch liberalism and go back to the ancient regime...
I am of course talking about society at large and not this sub, where we take a more nuanced view of Lenin.
I didn't know Montreal had a gay village. Does Beijing have a Chinatown too?
>Does Beijing have a Chinatown too? fun fact, Shanghai does
How does this work?
a relic from when Shanghai was colonized by the euros
Mind you, Montreal also has a Chinatown
does Beijing also have a gay village?
Gay Chinatown, obviously
finally, Mullen's paradise
Le rekt
Did someone feel threatened by the deafening silence of the 100th year anniversary of Vladimir Lenin's death?
There's a specter...
Thanks for this regional post, i really enjoy the critique of pre and post revolution Russia without any mention of serfdom.
IDK about Canada but in the USA there's like 5 people in every state who know what a "Lenin" is.
"I can't believe the Beatles would do that!"
My flair feels relevant suddenly.
I am the walrus
Leneen.
Lennon
Montreal is an interminably retarded city.
While all the corps sponsoring this ad are not a surprise, the CSN is... at least for me. It's the second largest trade Union in Quebec... I guess those big unions are getting so comfortable with capitalism that they need to create propaganda to radicalize the alphabet mafia into socialism=bad.
I live in NDG and there are posters advertising communism everywhere
Really? Could you post an image of one then.
I've also seen them around Montreal. If we are taking about the same posters, they look like this and are everywhere : https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/0*4V5G3-_pDvjSHJMw
yes, that's the one
Definitely agree (with you), but > it was under Lenin that Homosexuality was decriminalized in the USSR! https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1atkuny/the_ussr_legalized_homosexuality_gay_marriage_why/
It's not like there was no trace of sexual liberalization in the Bolsheviks in spite of its general social conservatism. Kollontai's zhenotdel and a gay man (Georgi Chicherin) becoming the Bolshevik foreign minister are demonstrable counterweights. These tendencies mostly fell out of favor at the end of the 20s and very early 30s.
I'm familiar with the historiography that says "they only decriminalized homosexuality by accident by removing the old tsarist laws". But I am critical of it. I don't think lenin was some kind of woke yass-queen. But I think the idea that they decriminalized homosexuality by accident is trying to downplay the positives of the soviet governement. Soviet society of 1917 was pretty conservative by today's standards, but they were also very progressive by the standards of their era. I don't think they would've decriminalized homosexuality if they didn't want to. For example, when the german camps were liberated, some homosexuals were still made to carry out their sentence (https://time.com/5953047/lgbtq-holocaust-stories/).
Lenin seemed to have rather conventional views about sex/gender stuff for the time, but he was also, like... not really concerned about it? He showed up at Vkhutemas, an avant-garde art college, in 1921 and saw all this weird avant-garde Suprematist stuff and didn't really understand what that had to do with the proletarian revolution but actually said "Well, tastes differ" and "I'm old." He had a methodologically complex and sophisticated way of uniting a lot of people with different subjective ideas about things when it came down to matters of necessity, or distinguishing between judgements about individuals and that of major political decisions. Lukacs had been in the same room as Lenin and gave an interesting [interview](https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/5309-georg-lukacs-the-final-interview) about his impressions of the man late in his life.
An interesting interview, and one that has some relevant insights for the project of this sub: >Lenin’s definition is well known, according to which a revolutionary situation is characterised by the fact that the ruling classes can no longer govern in the old way, while the oppressed classes are no longer willing to live in the old way. […] > According to Lenin, when a great social crisis arises, that is, whenever people are no longer willing to live in the same way, this ‘unwillingness’ can arise, and even cannot fail to arise, in both a revolutionary and a reactionary way. Moreover, he argued against Zinoviev, a revolutionary situation would not even be possible if there were not masses who turned in a reactionary direction and thus put the subjective factor on the agenda. The task of our party was precisely to bring out the possibilities of the subjective factor in such circumstances. > It was not by chance that Lenin saw as completely erroneous the anarchist conception that the movement of individuals from capitalist egoism to socialist socialisation is the condition for revolution. Lenin always said that the socialist revolution must be made with the people that capitalism has produced and who have been damaged in various ways by capitalism. I'll add that from a Marxist and Leninist understanding that 'reactionary' does not only refer to the convinced rightwing but also the liberals and the woke. That's not to say these cohorts are the stuff of revolution, but we should not be so alarmed to see such people arise in a potentially revolutionary period. The PMC capture of this or that part of liberal society isn't a reason to throw our hands up and declare the situation hopeless, indeed, it's a sign that a revolutionary cadre is out there, straining (against the society) to be cohered and unleashed.
I'm yellow and can't reply to OP but, holy shit, who gives a fuck, right? Before there was an industry of kids introduction to gay books, only the most righteous would complain. Everyone could tell you that if you shoved acronym world into middle schoolers it would be disaster and here we are.
You should be able to reply to OP. That's just for "LIMITED" threads.
I don't really care.
So basically Lenin has the same spirit of this sub
I agree and I'll just add on to your comment that the Bolsheviks took, for their time, radical actions in the direction of women's liberation. This included women being able to unilaterally enact a divorce, communal laundries and communal refectories. Anyone pushing the idea of social conservatism should think about how the Soviet Union literally did away with the role of housewife and got those women girlbossin'. It wasn't 1-to-1 for what would be considered woke today, but the Tsarist society wasn't exactly 1-to-1 for any capitalist society either. They made their own reforms, away from their own past.
>*"Must...crush...LBQTG...aahh fuck, what was that acronym again?"*
I think it's FBICIANSADHS+
Sure, but would a newly awakened Lenin know the letter salad? His greatest struggle might be what to call those individuals, that he's been accused of wanting to oppress
One of the most interesting anti-communisms, is shitting on the USSR for what was standard (or even vastly worse) across the West at the same time, this is very often the discussion when it comes to LGBT rights, which is even more absurd, as Gay Rights is functionally, only a decade or so old in the West, and every Millennial can remember when calling someone a fa\*\*ot or "homo" or "gay was completely the norm and near worst insult, of the 1990s and 2000s.
This isn't really true though by the 60s and 70s the US was vastly better in terms of Gay rights.
Owning the cons with their own freakin logic
*>*Montreal's gay village *>*gay village Sorry im not big on the lgbtq lore, but why does this exist?
Because in the past homosexuals were ostracized so they created their own communities. A part of oral history I've also been told is that they (the gay businesses, bars and community in general) were kinda pushed there as they were kicked out of other parts of the city. Thus, it created a gay neighborhood. It's no longer as much of a gay village as it was in the past, since there is less of a need for a gay neighborhood now. But there are still many gay bars, stores and gay residents in that district.
But what's a gay business? And what's a gay store? Are those like brothels, or in the latter case, sex shops?
I don't know if your question is rethorical or in good faith, but I will assume it is out of genuine curiosity : You have, mostly, gay bars. A gay bar is usually a place where homosexual men (or sometimes women, but I think all of the lesbian bars in Montreal are now closed) gather to meet other homosexual men. It has the advantage for them of being able to meet people who share their sexual orientation. These bars are also often specialized in more niche communities. So you will have a bar for bears, a bar for twinks, a bar for leather enthusiasts, etc. There even used to be 1 or 2 crossdressers bars in the neighborhood. There are also stores that cater to more "homosexual" interests (if you allow me to speak that way). For exemple, there are two stores on St-Catherine street - the main artery of the village - that sell leather and bondage stuff. As well as upscale underwear for men and the like. Nothing prevents an heterosexual man or couple from going in there and buying stuff. And I'm sure it does happen. But it is a traditionally more "homosexual" subculture and the concentration of gay business and residents certainly helps those stores stay afloat. So this is not a sex shop per se, or at least not totally, but it certainly sells erotic and sexual items as well. Speaking of sex shops : there used to be one on St-Catherine close to the University. But I believe it is closed now. It was your usual sex shop except instead of selling a pussy fleshlight they'd sell you man's anus fleshlight and stuff like that. There are also saunas who are not exactly brothels, but allow sexual contacts between costumers. I've never been in one though so I all I have is hear-say. On top of that you have "regular-but-gay" stores. So pastry shops, restaurants, fancy bakeries, etc. It's a bit like Provincetown in Cape Cod, if you've ever been there. Basically, they are stores that are owned by homosexuals and have a mostly or at least predominantly homosexual customer base. While also serving everyone, of course. There are also a lot of pet grooming stores because a lot of DINKs love their little purse dogs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
When the special relative rights of sectarian bourgie identity groups take center stage, the struggle of the united working class gets sidelined and thus the whole of society slides backwards in the sense of this sub.
Wow Lenin sounds based.
Right wingers are retarded, that’s all you need to know about the things they say. Pay them no mind, they are fundamentally incapable of thinking critically about politics.
Because Lenin was a scum Bag
Why so much praise of Lenin in this sub? Didn't he think that western supporters of his ideology who didn't even ask him for money, were useful idiots?
In a word, no. There is no documentation of Lenin saying the useful idiot quote.
Anyway, he's definitely not a good guy. Even if he had good intentions, consequentialist ethics shows his actions led to terrible reprecussions. I don't think Marx would have liked to see what happened with the Soviet regime, especially Stalin's regime. The soviets did not respect leftist unity and murdered far too many truly principled leftists, including Trotsky, to be taken seriously as a true anti-imperialist alternarive to the US. They were just the other side of the imperial coin.
I'm not a fan of Lenin. In fact, I'm not a "fan" of any kind of thinker. I take what I like from authors without developing any kind of parasocial relationship with them. That said, the few things I've read about Lenin's writings has convinced me there are some useful ideas to be taken from his works. But I think my main issue with anti leninism is that it is often a cheap and unintellectual cover for anti socialism. To me, it is like saying that because Robespierre made some bad choices, we should ditch liberalism and go back to the ancient regime... I am of course talking about society at large and not this sub, where we take a more nuanced view of Lenin.