Brian Charles Dauth
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.
^^^ CB: Yes, I didn't say it was ok, but that they followed the line that homosexuality is associated with bourgeois decadence. They have renounced that position today.
Doug has cited someone who has done research showing that gay men's incomes in the US today are slightly lower than average. Just by their sheer numbers homosexuals couldn't be only members of the ruling class in the US today. Also, Doug points out that the ( false) association of same-sexing with ruling classes goes back to Roman times.
There is a puzzle as to why the oppressed classes going back to Roman times would develop this prejudice against the ruling classes. What is the material basis for it ? I still have not researched whether the Greek working classes had the same sexual customs as the Greek ruling classes.
Seems likely that the Stalinists reinstituted anti-homosexual laws because they thought it would impact population growth, and the earlier Cuban position followed this line, I think.
I recall that you or somebody found two quotes from Castro on homosexuality, one from a while ago, and one more recent. Evidently, he has changed his view, along with the rest of the left movement. You ignore this and continue to claim "Castro is oppressing homosexuals". This seems foolish on your part. Seems you would want to broadcast that Castro has changed his views on your favorite subject, as a victory for you. Instead , you want to hang on to the past so you can redbait.
In general, I don't know if you want to use rams to make your point. Monkeys have dominance hierarchies among males in which the dominant male sexually mounts the inferior males. Do you think people want to be like monkeys or rams ?
> 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?
^^^^^ CB: They have a revolution in Cuba. Counterrevolutionaries are the ones trying to overthrow it. Some queers are counterrevolutionaries and some are revolutionaries and some (most maybe) are relatively neutral. Depends on what they do in relation to the revolution as to which one of these they are
^^^^^
> 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.
^^^^^ CB: By ignoring the other issues of oppression in the Cuban context, you are less likely to help any oppressed Cuban queers, because the Cuban's are more likely to put your protest in the same bag as the other opponents of the Cuban revolution.
A better approach would be to be pro-Cuban revolution, and then raise your concerns as a friend.
So, you can keep playing dense and pretending like you don't get what I am saying, but in the end , does this mean you don't really care whether you help oppressed queers in Cuba ? If you really cared about them, you would adopt an approach that is more likely to be effective.
On the other hand, I suppose it is unlikely you are marching in front of the Cuba Interest Section. Maybe you only discuss this on this list.
But most importantly, it seems as if the Cuban revolution is moving right along in getting rid of homophobia. Your complaints are largely moot; or you might say the Cubans _have_ responded to similar complaints from others.
^^^^^^
> 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?
^^^^^^ CB: I thought you said you live in Brooklyn. That makes you a Yankee ( I know Yankee Stadium is in the Bronx; you're a Dodger; lets watch you dodge this one).
The explanation is that you have issues that do not permit you to _understand_ sexuality clearly, so my perfectly sensible discussion of sexual issues doesn't get through to you.
^^^^^^^
> 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.
^^^^ CB: As the main example is usually the Soviet Union, the SU abolished the old Russian anti-homosexual laws at the beginning. That was before any market economy did, I believe. So,that's one for our side,contradicting your claim here. Later, with Stalinism anti-homosexual laws were reinstated. I haven't seen it demonstrated that said laws nor their enforcement were worse than the anti-homosexual laws in the capitalist countries. Later, they were dropped or not enforced. Chris Doss reports that lesbianism is not even illicit in Russia historically. So,that's another one for our side. I haven't heard claims that the other socialist countries persecuted gays worse than the capitalist countries.
If queers haven't been and aren't being oppressed significantly in market economies, why do we have a gay liberation movement in the U.S. ?
Following your post Michael Pugliese sends a post with homophobic quotes from Gorky and Castro. However, said quotes could be matched by similar quotes from leaders in market economies. So, returning to the point of dispute, said quotes don't establish greater oppression of queers in centrally planned economies.
As to Michael Pugliese's list of citations, I read some of what Michael sends, from time to time. A lot of things are discussed therein. What in particular are you citing these for with respect to this thread , Michael ?
In response to the below, as I said, Cuba is moving to end homophobia, and your complaint is largely moot. That you are focussed on Cuba, which has made progress on this issue, and ignore all the market economy countries with anti-gay laws makes you sound like a Michael Pugliese-style, broken-record anti-communist.
^^^^^
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