Trotsky and Stalin were radically different in their attitude towards the family. What caused the ideological and practical divergence in the interpretation of the Marxist legacy? What was Trotsky’s attitude?
Trotsky says that they wanted to destroy the family hearth and replace the old family – if not abolish it – with a new one. In his opinion, a part of the Thermidore is the comeback of private kitchens and private laundry washing facilities, which he, understandably, condemns, although he admits that the results of communal laundry washing facilities were disastrous, that laundry was stolen, it got torn and not properly washed and stored. We took away not only pigs but chickens too, he says, in order to force people to learn that food can only be found in collective centers and services. Trotsky sees the return of pots and pans to the family home as a great defeat of the revolution.
Trotsky also acknowledges the failure of the second part of his program, transferring the care of children to the state. The nurseries turned out to be bad, so well-to-do workers did not want to send their children outside of the home, and would rather have them looked after by babushkas. Trotsky observes that prostitution is flourishing, which he attributes to the return of commodity-money relations and the stabilization of the ruble. However, he was particularly affected by the abolition of the right to abortion, which happened in 1936. Namely, in 1920 the Russian Soviet Republic became the first country in the world to allow the right to abortion, causing a tsunami of abortions in the country. Susan Gorse Solomon gave a good overview of the reception of this measure during the 1920s through the eyes of the medical profession and the way in which as of 1927 the argument about the harmful impact of abortion on demographic trends was brought back into the main narrative. This was one of the main reasons why, after collectivization, gulagization and the great suffering of the population in Russia and Ukraine in the early 1930s, Stalin ordered the adoption of new, far more restrictive family legislation in the USSR.
Trotsky claims that this return of the ban on abortion is a law directed against women. The revolution, he says, must remove the causes that force a woman to have an abortion (as if they are supposedly only of an economic nature), and not, like a police officer, prevent women from doing it. But he sees the overall movement of the rehabilitation of the traditional family, which is taking place when the ruble is also being rehabilitated. For family law in the USSR, he says that it took over numerous elements from western bourgeois law. Trotsky sees as problematic the restoration of family authority, respect for the hierarchy and the elders in the family, because with that the children are being disciplined. We, he says, tried to completely separate the children from the family and from the old morals by teaching them to denounce their fathers as traitors or alcoholics. Stalin’s Thermidor, he says, restores the family, introduces penalties for child abandonment, and at the same time allows the restoration of the authority of religion.
Were there Trotskyist experiments in other communist countries as well?
It should be mentioned that the Chinese had a similar gruesome experiment in the period 1958-1961 under Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” program, which caused mass starvation and cannibalism. Namely, without private family planning related to the traditional family, rice and other foodstuffs that were supposed to last for a year would be eaten, used and looted within three months and then a severe famine would occur. When they saw the results of their utopian actions, the Chinese leaders allowed the system of nutrition, food preparation and planning to return to the natural family.
How did queer communism in the West pick up where Trotsky left off?
Even half a century ago, homosexual behavior was treated as a disease. After 1969 and the attack of homosexuals on the police in Stonewall, and the first gay parades that began to celebrate that event, especially after the problematic decision of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 which removed homosexuality from the list of diseases, this type of behavior grew into a kind of lifestyle, a value model with all the ideology that goes with it and which today reigns throughout American universities.
The spread of gay ideology under the guise of fighting for allegedly threatened LGBT rights has received a special impetus since the beginning of the 1990s, when this ideology de facto conquered the space of popular culture and became dominant in films, popular music and especially television series, the former bastion of traditional family values. As we know, there are very strong non-governmental organizations that monitor trends in the percentage of LGBT characters appearing in the so-called mainstream, most watched television series. Woe to you if you produce series which does not include a sufficient number of such characters: the aforementioned organizations put you on the pole of shame, and then advertisers flee from you.
The center of queer-communism is in the USA. All segments of power in America, including the top of the left-wing political elite of this country, are involved in this massive advocacy of “expansion of homosexual rights”. Jo Biden is the spearhead of the spread of queer-communist ideas and practices. Where does that come from?
Barack Obama, as you know, in his second inaugural speech dedicated a lot of time to advocating the rights of the LGBT population, Stonewall was promoted to a place of historical importance (now it’s almost like Gettysburg!) and the State Department went the furthest, and during the reign of Hillary Clinton promoted the doctrine on the basis of which the protection of homosexual rights becomes a legitimate basis for all kinds of US interventions towards a country in which it is estimated that they are threatened. Therefore, the USA is ready to intervene diplomatically, through economic sanctions, and even in a military way in order to protect, defend and promote the rights of this population.
We do not have enough room here to explain how this happened and why the ruling segments of American society almost unilaterally promote the gay agenda against the will of the majority of Americans. Namely, in the past twenty years, real cultural wars, strong debates and struggles have been waged around this issue in the public and the constitutional-legal system. As a rule, it turned out that wherever ordinary people managed to fight for a referendum, the majority clearly showed their will for marriage to be defined as the union of a man and a woman. Even at the level of legislative bodies of individual states, similar decisions were most often made, rejecting the legalization of gay marriage. But all over the world, the elite pushed this issue to the courts, which introduced the legalization of gay marriage through de facto legal violence and a kind of judicial dictatorship. This process ended with the judgment that was passed in 2015. But the overturning of Roe v. Wade after nearly half a century suggests that there is hope for the matter governed by the Obergefell decision as well.
Conservatives are inclined to conclude that the common people in America have less and less right to decide about anything because their lives are regulated by “someone from above” denying their rights to stick to their traditions, heritage, and values. Is there any hope for social renewal of Christian values?
Through the media, politics, universities, the judiciary and popular culture the anti-Christian leftist and liberal elite forcefully imposes its view on the world and suppresses Christian traditionalism. Professors and eachers no longer know how to address someone. In the US, you have a situation where the teacher asks the students in the first class how he should address them. Often with “they”, because he has to respect their plural personality. Today, you not only have to accept such diversity, but you also need to make it a personality model. Therefore, everything that was once abnormal, and was called schizophrenia for psychological reasons, today you have to respect, because it becomes a model. I heard from our people who live there that 14-15 year olds go to LGBT workshops, diversity lectures…
What consequences does this have for our planet?
The world in which we live, the Western world in a broader sense, is also refracted to the other ends, to the Eastern world, according to the value system and demography, which is the best indicator. We have a situation where Asian countries, taking over popular culture from this world of ours, are faced with a drastic fall in birth rates. Now, for instance, South Korea has the worst fertility rate, it goes to 0.5, and it’s happening radially fast, fewer and fewer children are being born. In Italy, the rate is 1.1, which is unsustainable, and it also reaches our smaller communities, there are more dogs that people take care of than children. Even in the Arab world, we see that the fertile transition, as they call it, is over. Even in Iran, the birth rate has fallen, which is unimaginable, because the country was a symbol of sufficient birth rates, but there is also a deep division among them now, because their celebrity world is increasingly opting for dogs. Fertility rates fell further during the coronavirus pandemic… That story reached everywhere, except in Africa. Only in Africa are children still being made as they used to be, where people have large and numerous families, and thanks to all these phenomena we have a huge disparity, and the question is where we will live and whether the whole of Europe will resemble Lebanon in 20 years in the 1980s, when there was a sudden jump in the Muslim population, which led to a struggle over the redistribution of political power and resources and a prolonged civil war.
How do you see the situation in Serbia after the terrible crimes in the school in Belgrade and in the villages near Mladenovac? Didn’t the “western values” that lead to what Bishop Nikolay and Father Justin called “cultural cannibalism” win in our country as well?
In 2016, I wrote about reality shows in Serbia and I will quote some of it because, like a number of other colleagues, I clearly announced what the consequences would be: “What are these shows? These are forms that promote the most primitive, instinctive types of behavior and are usually based on the depiction of verbal and physical violence, on the one hand, and sex of various kinds, on the other. But for such laboratory shows based on the postulates of experimental psychology, the classic rule applies that the boundaries must constantly be moved, and at an increasing speed. When these shows first began, the big event was showing the first hint of sexual intercourse. Only a few years later, sexual intercourse was shown already on the first or second night of the broadcast. This is followed by allowing viewers to see more and more of it, so the producers introduced changing partners, homosexual relationships, hints at group sex, etc. Violence also has to escalate, so apart from the rule to bring in liters of alcohol, insults of all kinds have to get worse, and fights, beatings and even bloodletting have also become the expected content of the show. The brutality, primitivism and violence of these shows cannot but be transferred to the street. He who enables this incessant mental crime directly produces and pours violence, disease and evil into society. Worst of all, it’s all illegal. It is enough to look at the Law on Broadcasting, ie its Article 19, which talks about the protection of minors, and Article 68, which prescribes the general obligations of broadcasters in relation to program content. It stipulates that broadcasters must broadcast content that contributes to raising the general cultural and cognitive level of citizens (section 4), as well as not broadcast a program whose content can harm the physical, mental or moral development of children and youth, or not broadcast a program that supports and emphasizes violence… and other forms of criminal behavior (sections 5 and 6). In addition, there is a Code of Conduct for broadcasters, on the basis of which it would also be easy to cancel such shows or to initially switch them to be broadcast after midnight.”
None of what I proposed, based on both science and common sense, was accepted. And that’s where we are.
What kind of future do you see for Serbia?
Recently, in a column, I tried to cry out that things can’t go on like this anymore, but our cries are not reaching anyone because our political elite knows no different than what they have been doing for the last decades. I pointed out how the value system is changing in which children are exposed to the erased space between the two satanisms, that of reality TV and I-D-J television, and how the Brussels queer-communism provides us with a model where it is important to be pampered as quickly as possible with as little work as possible. And that can only be done through crime or politics. I am especially overwhelmed by the terrible feeling that my family and I, as we are, are a nuisance or a surplus in this country because we try to adhere to a different code. Namely, my parents raised me to be honest, moral, hardworking, to love my country and fight for it, to be polite, responsible, not to steal, to respect people and help them and, what would they say, to be above all a good and hardworking person. My wife and I try to pass that same model on to our children. But we realize more and more that because of this we have big problems and that actually our country or what makes it up today is most often working against us. Many people contact me with huge problems that they see and do not know how to solve. If you want to live here, you have to get used to it and understand that at every step you will experience various obstacles and suffer precisely because you are fighting for this country and for some ideals. From being labeled by half the world, to being harassed by civil servants. But now I have a bigger problem, how to teach children to get used to it as something normal and to love their country, which is working against them. I had the strength and will to stay here and fight the windmills despite everything. But I have less and less strength to teach children to condemn themselves to such a fate and to accept it as normal. And I’m afraid that there are more and more of us like that.