Charles writes (must have been doing so as I was typing he hadn't done so. Sorry Charles):
> That sounds like a paraphrase or abbreviation. What exactly
did I say, and what was the context?
You said that it was okay for Castro to repress queers at the beginning of his revolution since homosexuality was associated with the decadent way of life he was opposing. This is, of course, silly since homosexuality is associated with all ways of life. Even rams do it (see Oregon Ram Study). Thank you Cole Porter.
> I do hail repression of counter-revolutionaries and expropriation
of the powers-that-be.
But how do you define counter-revolutionaries? Are queers counter-revolutionary? If your answer is yes, why are they?
> In this regard, protests of repression in Cuba must take account
of the imperialist giant ready to use any pretext to pounce.
Huh? So oppression is okay is if there is an outside enemy? That seems wrong.
> This is especially true of Yankees, like u.
Huh? Because I am queer I am a Yankee. Once again you are not making much sense on sexual topics. Do you have issues that do no permit you to address sexuality clearly? Or is there another explanation?
> The evidence is _not_ that there was more repression of
queers under centralized planning.
Huh? You better bone up on your queer history Charles. I will leave it to Michael to post the references, though both he and I have done so before. You seem not to be able (or refuse) to deal with the information.
The bottom line is there should be zero tolerance for sexual repression of any sort. I do not think that any person who refers to themselves as a progressive or a Marxist would approve of sexual tyranny. If they do, I have to wonder about their commitment and belief in progressive goals.
As for reading the thread about markets, I must confess that to my unschooled eyes it has consisted of more heat than light. Doug resigned from the debate saying that the question should be how to get more planning and less market, but that vague declaration (uncharacteristic of Doug) is of little use .
What should be planned? What areas should not be? Who gets to make these decisions? Should the production of art and sexual implements and pornography come under planning? Isn't it dangerous for a group to have control over planning whether it is through wealth or because they are some supposed revolutionary cadre? Doesn't history demonstrate that most groups, once they got decision-making power, went power happy/mad?
As my father used to say: "Who died and left you boss?"
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister