I have always felt that the heteronormative nature of marxist thought and its implementation was the biggest obstacle to its success.
Lenin seems to be the only one who understood this fact when he got rid of all laws governing sexuality. At Stalin's personal insistence, laws against homosexuality were restored and Mao went against thousands of years of Chinese history with his persecution of queers. As for Castro, while America experienced Stonewell, he put queers into rectificiation (concentration) camps. And while queers were creating GMHC and ACT UP, Castro once again put queers into concentration camps when AIDS surfaced.
My question is whether heteronormativity is essential to Marxist thought or whether it can be excised. It seems that there is an assumption that the proletariat is completely het-sexed. As one poster put it earlier (sorry I have forgotten who posted it), there seems to be some inability on the part of Marxists to deal with people of differing ability. The same seems to be true of differing sexuality. Why have Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist regimes all presecuted queers, while capitalist culture has seen the growth of queer culture?
There seems to be no advantage to suppress people's desire. And unlike race, gender, ethnicity, etc., sexual desire is not socailly constructed. My desire for men would exist in whatever culture/sytem I found myself in, just as same-sex activity is found in most primates. It is more than a social behavior: it is part of human primate hardwiring.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister