>Charles wrote:
<snip>
>>Or Cuba. It took an armed struggle for the initial victory of the
>>revolution in Cuba;
>Agreed. But look at the consequences: queers put into concentration camps.
>Clearly Castro did not know when to stop the violence (he also later
>imprisoned people with HIV/AIDS). Is that a success?
Was the consequence of putting queers into concentration camps (BTW, what's the validity for this?) the result of the Cuban Revolution, or was it a result of there not being enough done by the Cuban government to combat the usual "macho" culture of Cuba?
>Once the ball of violence starts is it possible to contain it? How do you
>determine when the objective(s) of the violence has been achieved?
Do you seriously think that a revolution must absolutely be about jack boots, swaths of people getting killed or murdered, soldiers on every street corner, watching for deviation from passers-by? I really get that impression from reading this. It sounds like you think the commies scream, "Let slip the dogs of war!" and all hell breaks loose. Can't it be something as orderly as a new government coming to power, writing new laws (reaction notwithstanding)?
Charles wrote:
>>However, I wouldn't say "violence" is not like a ball that just rolls.
>I come from a different place. As witness today: the abuses in the prison,
>the beheading, what >next?
Mmmm. Slightly different context than dictatorship of the proletariat.
<snip>
>Also check out this site about sodomy laws:
>
>http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/cuba/cuba.htm
>
>Also: Amnesty International
The linked article's a bit old. Is there anything more up-to-date?
>>I do think it is well placed in the case of Cuba. Despite errors, Cuba is
>>a shining example of a >>successful revolution.
>Here I disagree. The treatment of queers was a shining example of human
>depravity.
Yes.
If you don't mind my own insecurity showing: would you care if a gay-friendly liberal-capitalist regime were re-installed there, or would you rather Castro and Co. shape up and get out of people's bedrooms/alleyways/bath-houses/wherever?
Charles said:
>CB: Yes, these are cogent questions, and there is no short answer to them.
>However, I wouldn't say "violence" is not like a ball that just rolls. The
>partisans of the working class should not oppose the establishment of a
>socialist state because it will make mistakes and even commit crimes
>against
>socialist or working class interests and principles ( repression that is
>not
>of counterrevolution, in short). "We" can't control the whole process. It
>will be out of organic intellectuals control to some extent.
Not . . . quite . . . the way I'd have put it, but more or less tolerable . . . .
>
>In this regard, it does involve a certain ultimate faith in the working
>class, and in working class leaders. This faith will not always be well
>placed. I do think it is well placed in the case of Cuba. Despite errors ,
>Cuba is a shining example of a successful revolution.
Hmmm. Well, successful at wresting power away from the capitalists at any rate. Revolution's an on-going process, so long as capitalism's still around.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines