Another 3fer. I apologize for it being too disjointed, but I am getting sleepy. Also thanks to those who have pushed me on this issue. I appreciate it.
Charles wrote:
> 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.
Got it.
> Then Britain, the U.S. , other imperialist and counterrevolutionary forces
brought the first dose of mass violence to try to overthrow.
Got it: Real self-defense.
> No, American human beings do not have the standing to judge the revolution
in Cuba until they get their government off Cuba's back.
Well, we will disagree. I am a queer human being and I am going to judge those who oppress queers. It is important to get the American government off Cuba's back; it is equally important to get non-queers off my sisters' and brothers' back.
To me the right to control one's body is a basic right enjoyed by all human beings and should be defended in every society/culture.
> As an American, that should be your priority action.
For me, it is an equal priotrity to end queer oppression wherever it occurs.
> Your questions above do not make clear who you are proposing act.
That is exactly my question. What can be done? As I said before, comments like yours that call the revolution in Cuba a "shining example" are counterproductive. Queer oppression tarnishes such examples and is easily pointed to by our enemies in an attempt to discredit revolutionary change.
> If you are talking about Americans, they should privately make complaints.
And Bush is reading the letters protesting the war in Iraq. LOL. These private complaints are going to accomplish what? There needs to be public action/outrage to end queer oppression.
I have started to study some Lenin and if I am understanding him (I do not claim any expertise), he believed that enlightened consciousness would have to be developed and one could not rely on it just to occur. Clearly, some force has to be applied to get Cuba to make advances on queer issues.
It is great to be in solidarity with Cubans, but if the cost of solidarity is silence on queer oppression (or apologetics), the price is much too high.
Silence = Death
People either seem to hate Castro and the revolution or love him and it. Why is it so hard to have a nuanced (middle path) view that many things were right, but in one area at least he pulled a big-time boner and it needs to be fixed?
> 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.
Got it. I think that may be its major flaw. It was a good basis in its time, but we are over 40 years removed from that time. Queer theory has happened. I think a major part of the present revolutionary struggle will center on gender and sexuality. This struggle will help bring enlightened consciousness out of false consciousness.
> 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.
According to my friends inside and outside Cuba, Cuban and non-Cuban it has gotten better, but there is still a climate of fear.
> 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?
I am not saying the Party or particular people should be replaced. I think the revolutionary process has gotten stuck in a rut of false consciousness around the issue of gender/sexuality. My question is how to bring pressure on the party to get out of this rut and stop oppressing queers . Like you I think it is difficult to know "how" to effect change. In Cuba it is even more difficult since you cannot be queer and a party member. It is a catch-22.
It is as if in this case the party itself is guilty of counterrevolutionary activity by oppressing queers.
On the other hand, the Cuban revolution is like the "little revolution that could"; it continues on despite U.S. pressure. It seems churlish to criticize it in light of what it accomplished, but it has gotten stuck.
> 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.
I did not say that you did.
> 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.
Which in part fuels my anti-violence position. We disagree here in that I do believe violence escalates very quickly (or gathers momentum like a rolling ball) once it is embarked upon. As you note the technology of death available today is absolutely over the top. Is violent struggle realistic with so much death technology in the hands of the capitalists?
> 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.
It goes back to the Zen koan I cited previously: sometimes an unjust peace is better than a just war.
> 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.
I have read their comments and find them negligible. Better if Engels had shut his mouth, but it was the tenor of the times.
Frank wrote:
> hmmm...it is fine to say that gay marriage accomplished some good things,
but gay culture in america is not perfect and this should be acknowledged?
Very much so. There is a tremendous amount wrong with queer culture that is not exposed and addressed. Despite whatever oppression queers suffer, much of the behavior of queers in capitalist cultures is counterproductive to liberation despite their protests/beliefs to the opposite.
> why should cuba's revolution be "perfect" when this place is such a
fucking hellhole of contradictory madness, bigotry, happiness, wealth,
poverty, rich gays, raped gays, etc?
I never said it should be perfect, but it should not be praised for what it hasn't accomplished. That is counterrevolutionary.
Todd writes:
> Which is critical of both Arenas and Cuba (or apologetic if you prefer).
You should read his books. The movie was pretty bad.
> I also thought this looked interesting FWIW: a thumbnail sketch of the
history of Marxism and homosexuality. Don't know how much of its kosher.
> http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n2_mth1.html -- The
Past
Also see the next two installments. They are good.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n4_mth.html -- The Present
http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n6_mth.html -- The Future
> Well, a communist-style revolution, in theory is primarily interested in
getting rid of capitalism. Getting rid of "macho culture" could be a part
of it, owing to communism's liberal roots, but see the Hilson piece.
But you don't get rid of macho culture by oppressing queers. That just reinforces it.
> From what little reading I've done in the past few hours online, I've
found that the pre-Stalin USSR apparently didn't persecute queers.
Apparently Stalin also reversed an earlier policy of "pro-choice" vis-a-vis
abortion.
It seems Lenin got it about sexual liberation, but those who followed messed it up.
> Good. Problem is: what happens if it DOESN'T go that way . . . ?
There should be loud and vociferous protest that the revolution is harboring capitalistic notions of gender/sexuality and hampering the revolution. What there shouldn't be is lame apologies since they are easy for enemies to jump on.
> You mean the queer community was something else before capitalism came
along?
Yes indeed. See Homosexuality and Civilization by Louis Crompton
> Something "pure"?
Not pure at all (thank Buddha).
> And how does capitalism in general impede sexual freedom?
Capitalism creates the categories of queer behavior that are to be rewarded and acknowledged. What it doesn't allow for is the replacement of hetero/homo capitalist consciousness with queer consciousness.
> Canada's got some pretty liberal stuff on the books now, and it's still a
capitalist state.
Yes, but it is still far from wherre it needs to be. I think a great observation comes from the third part of the text noted above: Marxist Theory of Homosexuality Part III: The Future:
"It is at this eventual point in the revolutionary socialist transition from capitalism to communism that real progress towards the ultimate elimination of the need for recognition of division between gay and straight will depend first upon gay supplanting straight as both the dominant mode of sexual subjectivity and as the dominant form of sexual culture."
Yes, queer is this revolution's black.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister