A major source of tension in modern socialist discourse revolves around minorities in the global periphery.
This tension points toward one of the most fiercely debated ideological rifts within modern political thought and a painful contradiction: the conflict between anti-imperialism (respecting a nation's right to self-determination free from Western interference) and universal human rights (the belief that certain rights, including LGBT protections, belong to all people regardless of borders).
When certain factions of the political left prioritize national sovereignty over the immediate plight of local LGBT minorities, it is rarely because they believe those individuals "do not matter." Instead, it is usually the result of a specific, structural view of global power.
To understand why this blind spot exists, it helps to look at the competing frameworks at play.
Within geopolitical analysis, there is a tendency toward what critics call "campism", a worldview that divides the geopolitics into two rigid camps: the Western imperialist core (the US and its allies) and the anti-imperialist periphery (any nation resisting Western hegemony).
Under a strict campist framework, the primary evil in the world is identified as Western imperialism.
Consequently, any state that actively opposes or resists Western dominance is viewed as a necessary bulwark, or at least a nation whose sovereignty must be defended at all costs.
When domestic atrocities or human rights abuses, such as the brutal repression of LGBT people in Iran, Russia, or various African nations, are brought up, campist logic often minimizes them. They are viewed as "secondary contradictions" that can be dealt with after the global threat of imperialism is defeated.
Another reason some on the left hesitate to champion LGBT rights in sovereign, non-Western nations is the historical awareness of how human rights have been weaponized to justify military intervention, economic sanctions, or regime change.
This is often referred to as pinkwashing or homonationalism, when a Western power highlights its own progressive record on LGBT rights to contrast itself with a "barbaric" or "backward" foreign regime, thereby manufacturing public consent for aggressive foreign policy.
Activists worry that by loudly condemning the horrific treatment of LGBT people in a country like Uganda or Iran, they are inadvertently feeding the propaganda machine of Western warhawks who want to sanction, bomb, or destabilize those nations. To avoid fueling the flames of intervention, some choose silence or pivot entirely to defending the nation's autonomy.
There is a strong current of thought on the left that emphasizes cultural autonomy and cautions against imposing Western frameworks onto the Global South.
Some theorists argue that the modern, Western concept of "LGBT identity" (tied to specific political rights, pride movements, and consumer identities) does not neatly map onto how gender and sexuality have historically functioned in other cultures.
There is also a pragmatic fear of a Western backlash. When Western governments condition foreign aid on the adoption of LGBT rights, it predictably backfires spectacularly. Local leaders can easily point to the pressure and say, "See? Homosexuality is a decadent Western import being forced on our righteous culture."
This can make life infinitely more dangerous for local queer populations.
This silence has not gone unchallenged, however. A massive, growing contingent of progressive thinkers, internationalists, and local activists within these repressed nations heavily criticize this blind spot. They label it a form of "left-wing Orientalism" or reverse chauvinism.
Critics argue that treating entire nations as monoliths completely erases the actual people living inside them. A nation's "cultural autonomy" should not mean the autocrat in power has a blank check to torture his own citizens.
Local LGBT activists in places like Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa frequently express immense frustration with Western leftists who defend the regimes oppressing them. For these local communities, state violence is not an abstract academic debate about "sovereignty" but a matter of daily survival.
They argue that true solidarity must be people-to-people, not state-to-state.
Ultimately, this divide shows how difficult it is for modern political movements to balance two vital principles: fighting external geopolitical bullying while simultaneously defending vulnerable minorities from internal state violence.
Do you mean that the best way to champion LGBT rights in non imperialist core countries is through LGBT people in those countries rather than top down?
