Anti-capitalism and Gay Identity

Felipe Caro Romero

ZILAS, KU

How can we explain the origin of the lgbt movement? Where does it begin? Is it just one big movement
that expanded across the globe or does it spanned to several places separately? Today these questions are
in the center of many discussions about the legitimacy of lgbt rights, especially in developing countries
in the global south. Many conservative parties deemed the lgbt movement and the so called “gender
ideology” as a foreign perversion, an outside agenda that aims to destroy “traditional” values, whatever
those are in specific contexts. Therefore, reviewing the history of the lgbt movement is a key component
of a continuous discussion about not only the fluidity of human sexuality, but also about the legitimacy
of the oppressed when looking for a better world. That’s the core point of this presentation.
In 1979 historian John D’Emilio, one of the few scholars at the time that was working on the history of
the lgbt movement in the USA or abroad, tried to give an explanation for its origins in the first half of
the twentieth century. For D’Emilio, the movement was linked to the economic stability of the middle
class in the USA. Specifically wage labor and commodity production. This didn’t mean that “capitalism”
created homosexuality. Only that under a capitalist based economy the gay identity thrived. This was
linked to the roll that the heterosexual family played in pre-capitalist societies. According to him “the
survival of each member depended on the cooperation of all”.1 For D’Emilio with the increased
possibility of independence that the development of capitalist societies allowed, the importance of the
heterosexual family changed:
“In devoiding the household of its economic independence and fostering the separation of
sexuality from procreation, capitalism has created conditions that allow some men and women
to organize a personal life around their erotic/emotional attraction to their own sex. It has made
possible the formation of urban communities of lesbians and gay men and, more recently, of a
politics based on sexual identity.”2
Thus, D’Emilio concludes there is an explicit contradiction between the traditional heterosexual family
and the development of free markets. We could think that the new wave of pink-capitalism today is a
means fot this to change.
The findings of D’Emilio were, and still are, seductive. He did try to explained the emergence of a
sexuality movement in the twentieth century. And by the USA he may have found some compelling
arguments on the emergence of the first political organizations. To some extension, that argument could
be extended to the rest of the world. Even some Latin-American groups translated and printed the work
of D’Emilio as a way of explaining its own emergence.
However, it is no surprise to ANYONE that today the framework of D’Emilio doesn’t exactly fit when
looking at the Latin-American case. But not by simple reasons. The first problem is the timing of the
development of a strong middle class. This didn’t happen in the first half of the twentieth century,
therefore there was no possibility of a strong homosexual political organization then. This doesn’t
invalidate the thesis of D’Emilio. And here I must tell you that that’s not my aim. What’s really interesting

1
P.6
2
P.7
to me is how we can use D’Emilios findings to comprehend what happened in Latin-America. Bear with
me.
So, we can say that there were no strong homophile organization in Latin-American prior to the
emergence of the homosexual liberation movement. Unlike the USA or some other countries in Europe,
there were no big political organizations of homosexuals in the first half of the twentieth century. There
were, of course, small particular cases like the famous Dance of the 41 Maricones (faggots) in 1901
México, but here we must differentiate between act of transgression and social movement. Again, this
doesn’t mean that there were no homosexuals or even gay cafes or bars, but they were few, really small
and not connected enough to create a strong clandestine subculture jet.
Enter the late 60’s. The 68 revolts worldwide and the Stonewall riots launched the homosexual youth of
some Latin-American countries to find a way into the political spectrum. In Argentina since 1967 there
were homosexual political groups, but in 1971 it was founded the Frente de Liberación Homosexual,
which lasted until the beginning of the dictatorship in 1976. The same year in México Nancy Cárdenas a
former communist student founded the Frente de Liberación Homosexual Mexicano, split in 1973 in
different other groups among which was be famous “La Escuela Marxista Leninista para Lesbianas
Feministas” (The Marxist-Leninist School for Lesbian Feminist).
This groups will be the first wave of the homosexual liberation movement in Latin-America and they will
set an example for the emergences of similar groups around the region. What’s the most predominant
characteristic of this groups? their clear closeness to the political left.
And this must not be taken as a minor point. If we see, for example, a photo of the FLHA we can see
the spirit of the foquism. They dressed like a guerrilla, and yet they hold no weapons. And this is not
merely a aesthetic statement. Both groups were profoundly connected with the left. The FLHA was a
strong defendant of the left version of Peronism, so strong was their presence in the manifestations that
the right side started to create slogans trying to link homosexuality and leftwing politics: “Ni putos, ni
faloperos. Somos los soldados de Perón, los montoneros” (Neither faggots, not addicts. We are Perons,
soldiers, los montoneros). Other example is The Frente Homosexual de Acción Revolucionaria in
México, which actively participated in any pro-Cuban demonstration and supported national left wing
presidential candidates.
The Colombian, Venezuelan and Brazilian cases were the same. Young students organized into
clandestine groups, inspired with left-wing ideas that launch them into the political landscape. And this
left wing ideas were not only from the region. The influence of the works by different homosexual activist
or organization were fundamental. From Guy Hocquenheim with his anti-stalinistic critics in “Sex And
Revolution” to Angelo Pezzana from FUORI!: Fronte Unitario Omosessuale Rivoluzionario Italiano and
his called for international solidarity. From the early intersectionality of the Black Panthers Party to the
federalism of the Front d'Alliberament Gai de Catalunya. They took a little bit of everything that could
help them explained their oppression.
And that’s precisely the main point of the presentation. The Latin-American homosexual liberation
movement looked to the left for a way to explained their own existence. Left wing ideas provided a
framework for the emerging movement. They helped in the creation of a homosexual identity juxtaposed
to a oppressed society. We can appreciate this in this extract from the homosexual liberation movement
from Colombia:
“No human being in the random history of humanity has owned so many negative and mean
titles as the homosexual: possessed, sinner, amoral, anti-natural, criminal, crazy and sick. This is
only possible in a selfish society, that prices hierarchy, authority and power above all else. Only
 a sick and ashamed society could create an imaginary enemy as the homosexual. That way the
HOMSEXUAL ACTION attacks directly the power, law, order and norm of the macho (man).
It fights to overcome all societies based on oppression and discrimination. Therefore this action
goes not only to the simple sexual liberation, but to the shacking of all phallic and classist
societies.”3
The findings of D’Emilio didn’t contemplate the ideological framework that is so explicit in the
emergence the Latin-American homosexual liberation movement, which is also the emergences of the
regional lgbt movement. This is of course not a reproach. D’Emilio didn’t need that framework. And his
findings still are useful for research. All of the members of these groups were university students. They
all lived in the capitals of their respective countries and they all had the possibility of emancipation from
their heterosexual families. But undoubtedly the emergence of a lgbt movement not defined by the
political spectrum and then the explosion of the liberation movement after the end of the sixties may be
a reason for the perpetuation of the Stonewall riots as a fundational moment in the USA (and some times
abroad).
In Latinamerica the relationship between the lgbt movement and the left has been troublesome, to say
the least. The rejection from the majority of the regional left gave way in some cases to extreme acts of
violence. And I’m not only talking about the Cuban experience. This year is the thirtieth anyversary of a
massacre carried out by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movment in Perú, known as the the Night of
the Gardenias, which ended the life of eight dancers in a local disco in the city of Tarapoto under the
pretext of social cleansing.
Paradoxicaly, today most right wing politics have created a fictional conspiracy theory in the region that
links homosexuality with “gender ideology” and most surprising with castrismo and chavismo. This has
left the lgbt movement without ideological basis and therefore has turned lgbt politics into “technical”
and “moral” discussion, void of all political content.
Thus by looking into the history of the early Latin-American lgbt movement we can comprehend the roll
that politics played in its shaping. Not only as a means of auto-recognition and social analysis, but also as
a guideline to solidarity. From joining a protest in favor of metalworkers in Sao Pablo in 1980 to
Subcomandante Marcos declaring that “Yes, Marcos is gay, is a gay in San Francisco”, the complex
relationship between anti-capitalism and the lgbt movement can help us understand how oppressed
groups look at one another in their struggle to change the world.

3
León Zuleta, “Aspectos sociopolíticos de la paranoia anti-homosexual y la acción homosexual”. El Otro.
No. 2 (1978), 5-6.