Brian Dauth:
Charles wrote:
> However, defense of the revolution if necessary to survive must not be
forgone because of the abstract principle that often violence begets
violence.
To me "violence begetting violence" is not an abstract principle, but an established fact. Is violence ever to be forgone or is it always appropriate?
^^^^ CB: OK defense of the revolution should not be foregone because , often, violence begets violence. Otherwise, the ruling class could permanently forestall the revolution by carrying out violence.
Yes, violence is to be foregone many times. It is not always appropriate
:>). It must be real self-defense.
> I understand you are enunciating a Buddhist principle, but I am not
discussing a revolution being carried out based on Buddhist principles.
Got it. What I am trying to understand are the principles you are basing your revolution on, specifically the principles governing the use of violence.
^^^^ CB: Well, some of them are on the earlier posts in this thread. Basically it is the idea of self-defense. The Russian Revolutionary insurrection of October 1917 was accomplished with very little violence. I mean like 5 people killed or something. Then Britain, the U.S. , other imperialist and counterrevolutionary forces brought the first dose of mass violence to try to overthrow. Here's Winston Churchill's confession:
History has forgiven Churchill for his role in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union in 1917. England's Minister for War and Air during the time, Churchill described the mission as seeking to "strangle at its birth" the Bolshevik state. In 1929, he wrote: "Were [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall."
> Who the hell am I to judge their mistakes, but specifically, no I would
not dissolve the Cuban revolution if what you say is true.
Judgement is allowed any human being and occurs all the time. I am not saying dissolve the revolution (you seem to take things to an extreme), but I am asking how one should respond to flaws in the revolution such as the persecution of queers (this is of course assuming one consider the persecution of queers a flaw).
^^^^^ CB: No, American human beings do not have the standing to judge the revolution in Cuba until they get their government off Cuba's back. As an American , that should be your priority action. How "one" should respond to flaws in the rev in Cuba depends on who "one" is. I can see if you were a Cuba Solidarity activist, you might seek a private meeting with some of your Cuban contacts and register criticism of persecution of queers.
^^^^^
> My assertion was that in many revolutions there have been unjustified
crimes, i.e. uses of violence and force that could not be justified as
defending the revolution from counterrevolutionaries.
Agreed.
> Nonetheless, the solution was not to windup the revolution, hand over
things to imperialism.
Agreed (again you jump to an extreme). But what is the solution when the right to sexual self-determination is abrogated? Is the persecution allowed to continue with the hope it plays itself out? What if those asserting the right to sexual self-determination are branded counterrevolutionaries? Are they? What (if anything) is counterrevolutionary about freedom/possession of one's own body? Isn't the revolution supposed to liberate people from the yokes that capitalism places on them?
^^^^^
CB: Well, yes I "jumped to the extreme" to see what you are getting at, move the discussion to its logical conclusion. Your questions above do not make clear who you are proposing act. If you are talking about Americans, they should privately make complaints. If you are talking about Cubans, they should criticize, protest and argue within the Cuban system, which has occurred with some impact in changing the laws and government policy.
I'd say the Cuban revolution is mainly based in classical Marxist revolutionary theory which does not have a significant component on sexual liberation, and specifically not queer liberation. Queer (left) liberation theory in the U.S. ( among masses) is recent in origin, with Harry Hay in the fifties or so; although, my understanding is that there are significant heterosexual liberatory components to the Cuban revolutionary culture, with organized places where unmarried people can go and do it. These elements of heterosexual liberation are a logical basis to argue for queer sexual liberation. I don't have them at hand, but in recent years I have seen many articles and posts on these left email lists on gay liberation trends in Cuba, such as popular Cuban films about gay love , etc.
Yes, the revolution is supposed to free people from the yokes of capitalism and all class exploitative society.
> Specifically, whatever persecution of queers there has been in Cuba, does
not mean the
revolution or government or Party should be dissolved or removed from power.
Again, more extremes.
1) Are there any persecutions or uses of violence which might mean the party should be removed from power?
^^^^^ CB: Yes, in the history of Communist Party governments there have been such. But I'd say the particular people in power "should be removed" ( although how is not clear), but not replaced by imperialists or Miami Cubans or Russian bourgeoisie or whatever.
Who are you saying should replace the Party ?
^^^^^
2) Does Marx in his writings indicate any limits on the use of violence/persecution, both generally and specifically with regard to queers/sexual self-determination.
^^^^^
CB: It would be a gross misrepresentation of what I am saying on this thread to claim I have a "predeliction" for violence or favor "unlimited" violence; or that I am saying Marx did. This is "lesser evil" violence to be limited as much as possible, OF COURSRE ! Unfortunately, in the actual history of the 20th Century, the bourgoisie were able to up the ante to the essentially unlimited potential violence of nuclear threat, and other world historically big violence, as in the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
This is basically the new problem (!) that Marxists face based on the experience of the first efforts to build socialism: the bourgeoisie have the means and the moral degeneracy to play chicken with holocaust and even species annihilation in defending capitalism.
I really am not sure what we can do to get out of this trap now, especially given the nuclear and other WMDs. I even suspect that at one level , the Soviet people DID give up socialism, to back off from nuclear confrontation with the U.S. The Soviet People know holocaustic war. The American people do not. In other words, it was the Soviet Marxist system that put a limit on how much violence or potential violence to humanity that should be countenanced in defense of a socialist revolution. Marx never had to deal with the level of death technology that now exists.
I don't know of any discussion by Marx of same-sex sex, except he _may_ have made some anti-same sex remarks in private letters. Engels made public anti-same sex statements. However, neither advocated violence against same sexers.
Thanks for your help.
Queer Buddhist Resister
------------------------------