sylvia is directly commenting on the “average gay” you mention here. being gay absolutely does not automatically make you communist or even leftist, which is emboldened by the heteronormative western “gay rights” movement that prioritizes marriage and participation in extractive economies. histories frequently erase queer revolutionaries or they do not make themselves known. to claim a complete straightness of proletarian revolutions as a direct implication of gay complacency is pretty misplaced here. many queer movements seek acceptance in their violent contexts, this is true. colonialism, imperialism, crusades etc followed by pinkwashing have in turn rendered a great deal of reactionary positions from resistance groups in the global majority. additionally, varied and vast queer histories (queer being a haphazard umbrella term here, sorry) were erased by colonialism, only to be made into the enemy on their own land. baseline, so many movements that exclude queer people do so out of a fear that only serves to empower empire.
i’m not mad at your thinking, but i do think the framing lacks some rigour. i’ve heard many times in an almost stagist manner that queer movements can come after revolutions, but a revolution that doesn’t involve queer people holds little weight, in that a revolution that upholds capitalist structures of family, patriarchy, etc will always meet the ire of its people and the greedy poison touch of the enemy. i make no excuses for queer people who allow themselves to be exploited for the empire’s riches. no one should. but it is equally dangerous and dare i say ahistorical to assign revolutionary history to straights as opposed to a people united.
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
turnnoffyourmind
izzy806
2087
germansingergirl
