Fidel Castro admits responsibility for persecution of Cuban Homosexuals

[Adi Shankara]

From the BBC:


Fidel Castro has said that he is ultimately responsible for the persecution suffered by homosexuals in Cuba after the revolution of 1959.

The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.
"If someone is responsible, it's me," he said.
In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to "re-education camps".

Mr Castro said homosexuals had traditionally been discriminated in Cuba, just as black people and women.
But, nevertheless, he admits he didn't pay enough attention to what was going on against the gay community.
"At the time we were being sabotaged systematically, there were armed attacks against us, we had too many problems," said the 84-year-old Communist leader.
"Keeping one step ahead of the CIA, which was paying so many traitors, was not easy."
In 1979, homosexuality was decriminalised and, more recently, there have been efforts to legalise same-sex unions.
'At death's door' In the interview with La Jornada, Mr Castro also spoke of the economic embargo against the island, which was imposed by the United States in 1961. He said it was just as damaging today as it was then.
"The biggest problem was always medicine and food, which is true even today," he said.
Mr Castro's comments came in the second instalment of a lengthy interview with the journalist Carmen Lira.
On Monday's instalment, he said he had been "at death's door" during the long illness which forced him to step down as Cuba's leader.
Mr Castro fell ill in 2006 and handed power to his brother Raul in 2008.
He underwent several operations for an intestinal illness.
"I asked myself several times if (the doctors) would let me live under these conditions or whether they would allow me to die," he told La Jornada.
Mr Castro led Cuba for almost 50 years after toppling the government of Fulgencio Batista in a revolution.
The Communists remain in power and Fidel Castro remains head of the Communist Party, although his brother Raul is president of the country.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11147157

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

We all knew of the discrimination against homosexuals in Cuba, I am thankful that Castro has admitted responsibility for it, and has expressed remorse for these actions.

[Obs]

Now this is interesting.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

About damn time.

[Adi Shankara]

We all knew of the discrimination against homosexuals in Cuba, I am thankful that Castro has admitted responsibility for it, and has expressed remorse for these actions.

although to be honest, he didn't exactly admit remorse, nor apologize.

I still respect Castro though, and it shows he doesn't view his administration as infallible.

[DragonQuestWes]

It's good that Castro is now (if he hasn't been) aware of these issues. Too bad he didn't get a chance to see it when he was still in power.

Wonder what his brother could do about it.

[Weezer]

It's not like capitalist governments haven't done the same. :rolleyes:

I'm glad he finally admitted it though. I hope Raul can fix up homosexual rights in Cuba.

[727Goon]

Oh that makes it okay then.


It's not like capitalist governments haven't done the same. :rolleyes:

Is that the standard now?

[the last donut of the night]

Is that the standard now?

Of course not. It never was. What he was saying is that the mainstream media is quick to blame socialist regimes for all these horrors, but nobody ever bats an eyelash at capitalist societies, and when they do, they're either silenced, killed, or just receive the petty and stupid excuse that it can't be related to capitalism, it doesn't exist, or any other wishy washy liberal propaganda piece.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Doesn't he know that being a communist leader means never having to say that you're sorry?

[Weezer]

Oh that makes it okay then.



Is that the standard now?

Did I say that?

[Hiero]

This is old, it is not the first time Fidel Castro has admit persucation for homosexuals. I think it is even in Oliver Stones documentory he talks about this issue and mentions how masochistic Latin American society is. Since the late 70s Cuba had been making progressive steps (although slow) towards social rights for all Cubans.

When I was there in 2007/2008 in Santa Clara there were quite a few gay couples walking around the streets enjoying the night life. While in Havana and Santiago de Cuba the machoist culture is quite visible in the young male generation (as fair as could perceive as visitors) Social issues is not something that can be flicked on or off, it takes time, though leaders should take the responsibility of setting the standard.



Of course not. It never was. What he was saying is that the mainstream media is quick to blame socialist regimes for all these horrors, but nobody ever bats an eyelash at capitalist societies, and when they do, they're either silenced, killed, or just receive the petty and stupid excuse that it can't be related to capitalism, it doesn't exist, or any other wishy washy liberal propaganda piece.


What the media, political and social commentators also do is portrary a difference between capitalist and socialist regimes as a difference between liberal social life and state determined life. So the racism and homophobia of say a country town in southern USA is the homophobia and racism of that town and not reflective of the USA government or Obama, as people have freedom of social life. In Socialist countries they over empahsis the power of the state so that any social life is dictated by the state and hence a policy. So even if in 10 years there is still homophobia in Cuba (which there probally will be) it is still Castro's responsibility. They same occurs for Islamic societies, where the people are a determined people with no agency, they are just a homogenous group under control of a religous code.

Basically if I walk down the street in Australia I do so because I have freedom and freedom to express that freedom. If a Cuban or North Korean does, they do so under the gaze and control of the party/state and only for party/state reasons, that is they are going to work in a rice field or spreed propaganda at the local school etc.

[Axle]

At least he admitted it happened...so at least that deserves some kudos.

[Nachie]

mentions how masochistic Latin American society is.

I don't think that's the word you were looking for...

Machista, perhaps? (in Spanish)

[The Vegan Marxist]

It was going to happen sooner or later. Homosexuals have been given a voice within Cuba thanks to Castro's daughter. Glad to see Fidel taking responsibility for this.

Viva Fidel!

[Sir Comradical]

Unfortunately, at one point in time, many socialists saw homosexuality as a sign of capitalist decadence and degeneracy. It would be unfair to blame any one tendency for these reactionary views because it was largely a cultural thing at that point I suppose.

[Sir Comradical]

It's not like capitalist governments haven't done the same. :rolleyes:

I'm glad he finally admitted it though. I hope Raul can fix up homosexual rights in Cuba.

This is true, but we should hold socialists to a higher standard.

[fa2991]

There was the homosexual situation. Homosexuals were not called up into military service. You're faced with the problem of a strong resistance against homosexuals, and when the Revolution triumphed, during this period that we're talking about, machismo was an element that was very much present in our society, and there was still widespread rejection of the idea of homosexuals serving in military units.

Those three factors led us not to call them up for military service, but that became a sore spot, because they were not called upon to make the hard sacrifice [for the country] and some people used that argument to criticize homosexuals even more harshly.

With those three categories of people who for one reason or another were excluded [from duty], the Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Produccion (UMAPS, or Military Units to Aid Production) were created, where people in those three categories were sent. That's what happened...

Those units were created all across the country, and they did certain kinds of work, mainly helping out in agriculture. That is, it was not just the category of homosexuals that was affected, although certainly part of them, those who were called up for compulsory military service, because it was an obligation that everyone in the country was taking part in.

That's how the problem came about, at it is true that they weren't internment camps, or punishment units - on the contrary, we tried to raise the morale of the people who were sent to the camps, present them with an opportunity to work, to help the country in those difficult times...

Of course later, in a visit I made to Camaguey, touring one of the agricultural installations, I became aware of the distortion the original plan had been subjected to, because I can't deny that there were prejudices against the homosexuals. I personally asked for a review of that issue. Those units lasted only about three years.

...

I've heard that people who acted gay or cross-dressed got priority leaving during the Carter-era boat lift because Cuba wanted to unload some homosexuals. Anyone know how true that is?

[Hiero]

I don't think that's the word you were looking for...

Machista, perhaps? (in Spanish)

That is what I mean, macho. Thanks for picking that up, it would have made me look like a racist otherwise.



At least he admitted it happened...so at least that deserves some kudos.


But he already did that, maybe it is new to BBC but it is not new in any objective sense.

[RedSonRising]

As others have said, he did express remorse for enforcing policies hostile to alternative sexualities within the historical and cultural context of the Cuban revolution in its initial stages.

Also, a bit off topic, but I hate how they say he "handed power over" to Raul.Article after article I see that same phrase used. He was elected by the National assembly whose constituents are the people, not given some throne in a gift box.

[fa2991]

Also, a bit off topic, but I hate how they say he "handed power over" to Raul.Article after article I see that same phrase used. He was elected by the National assembly whose constituents are the people, not given some throne in a gift box.

Do you have a source on that? I asked on here a while ago if the Castros were elected by the National Assembly, but never got an answer, let alone proof.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Do you have a source on that? I asked on here a while ago if the Castros were elected by the National Assembly, but never got an answer, let alone proof.

BBC even acknowledged that Raul was elected by the National Assembly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261204.stm

[fa2991]

BBC even acknowledged that Raul was elected by the National Assembly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261204.stm

Thanks. It's good to finally have a source, even if it's one that remarks "It is understood that [Raul] was the only nominee in a vote seen as a formality." :lol:

[REDSOX]

Its good that Fidel has taken personal responsibiltiy from what happened in Cuba to gays in the 60's and 70's. It takes guts to admit it though he should have done it clearly before. Nevertheless it is time to move on and deepen sexual orientated equality in Cuba and finally put this to bed once and for all

[Queercommie Girl]

Unfortunately, at one point in time, many socialists saw homosexuality as a sign of capitalist decadence and degeneracy. It would be unfair to blame any one tendency for these reactionary views because it was largely a cultural thing at that point I suppose.

Many still do.

[Queercommie Girl]

I wonder why is it that transgendered people are not mentioned.

People need to stop assuming that the term "homosexuals" also covers trans people too.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Now will he apologize for co-opting the liberatory potential of the Cuban revolution towards the creation of a new bourgeoisie of bureaucrats and "party leaders"? (Which gave his regime the means to persecute homosexuals and transfolk in the first place) Or for the genocidal Dengist liberalization process his regime has conducted since 1993, nearing its completion with Cuba coming total integration into the global world economy?

[the last donut of the night]

Or for the genocidal Dengist liberalization process his regime has conducted since 1993

My emphasis.

Genocidal? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Obs]

My emphasis.

Genocidal? What the fuck are you talking about?
He's ultra-left, goddammit, he doesn't need to back up his accusations!

[McCroskey]

In my opinion, repression of homosexuality in Cuba in the 50s and 60s is a non-event. I mean, homosexuality was repressed in practically the whole western world in those years. Popular perceptions change with time, and the macho culture in the 60s and 70s was not down to a particular political system, but to the inequality and division that tradition (such as religious beliefs or cultural heritage) created, fuelled by capitalist need for social tension. Repression of homosexuality is not inherent to all kinds of capitalism, only those based on tradition, religion and chauvinism as methods of thought control. Liberal capitalism sees no problem in sexual orientation equality (they even see a market in it). The problem homosexuals faced in those years were the same in any political system, it was the "normal" way of thinking in that sexist and pathriarcal society.

And, if we are to believe Fidel's words in his interview 100 horas con Fidel Castro, he states that what is usually perceived as internment of homosexuals in labour camps after the revolution was, in fact, a reluctance of making homosexuals go through the compulsory military service, because social sthereotypes and the unpopularity of gays in Cuban society in those years turned their service into a hell of abuse, discrimination and injustice, so (he says) they decided to give whoever declared themselves as being homosexual, the chance to join the revolutionary work comitees, the alternative to military work, done mainly by women, rather than making them join the institutionally homophobic Revolutionary Armed Forces. They didn't think it possible to change overnight the macho culture imbeded in Latin American mentality for so many years, especially in the army.

Even in modern societies with "freedom" of choice, the army is not the best place to come out of the closet!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Doesn't he know that being a communist leader means never having to say that you're sorry?

That was before the Soviet Union fell and couldn't prop them up anymore.

[Queercommie Girl]

In my opinion, repression of homosexuality in Cuba in the 50s and 60s is a non-event. I mean, homosexuality was repressed in practically the whole western world in those years. Popular perceptions change with time, and the macho culture in the 60s and 70s was not down to a particular political system, but to the inequality and division that tradition (such as religious beliefs or cultural heritage) created, fuelled by capitalist need for social tension. Repression of homosexuality is not inherent to all kinds of capitalism, only those based on tradition, religion and chauvinism as methods of thought control. Liberal capitalism sees no problem in sexual orientation equality (they even see a market in it). The problem homosexuals faced in those years were the same in any political system, it was the "normal" way of thinking in that sexist and pathriarcal society.

And, if we are to believe Fidel's words in his interview 100 horas con Fidel Castro, he states that what is usually perceived as internment of homosexuals in labour camps after the revolution was, in fact, a reluctance of making homosexuals go through the compulsory military service, because social sthereotypes and the unpopularity of gays in Cuban society in those years turned their service into a hell of abuse, discrimination and injustice, so (he says) they decided to give whoever declared themselves as being homosexual, the chance to join the revolutionary work comitees, the alternative to military work, done mainly by women, rather than making them join the institutionally homophobic Revolutionary Armed Forces. They didn't think it possible to change overnight the macho culture imbeded in Latin American mentality for so many years, especially in the army.

Even in modern societies with "freedom" of choice, the army is not the best place to come out of the closet!

I think the "revolutionary work committees" aren't intrinsically less worthy than the army at all, just because it's done more by women and considered to be "women's work" more.

If men and women are truly equal, then their work are also of equal worth.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

My emphasis.

Genocidal? What the fuck are you talking about?

"Genocide" is a vague term referring to the destruction of a people. In the long term sense, the full integration of a once-isolated Cuban state system into the global liberal market (with the requisite cuts in social programs, etc.) is genocidal to the Cuban people. Not all genocide is Auschwitz.


In my opinion, repression of homosexuality in Cuba in the 50s and 60s is a non-event.

Yes, it's fairly easy to declare something a "non-event" if it did not impact you personally...I wonder what those who were impacted would say....


I mean, homosexuality was repressed in practically the whole western world in those years.And it still is, for the most part. If everyone else is doing it, does that make it OK for Cuba to do it too, especially when proponents uphold the Cuban state as a supposed alternative?


Popular perceptions change with time, and the macho culture in the 60s and 70s was not down to a particular political system, but to the inequality and division that tradition (such as religious beliefs or cultural heritage) createdThis is nothing more than bourgeois determinism that eschews the emphasis on the historical responsibility of individuals.


fuelled by capitalist need for social tension.In other words, capitalist conditions prevailed in post-revolutionary Cuba


Repression of homosexuality is not inherent to all kinds of capitalism, only those based on tradition, religion and chauvinism as methods of thought control.So are you arguing that the Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba was more "chauvinistic" than liberal capitalism? Almost reads like liberal anti-communist apologism....


Liberal capitalism sees no problem in sexual orientation equality (they even see a market in it).Yet the market for queer culture is only made available to a privileged strata of queer yuppies, the queer masses are left to rot in the closet by the liberal capitalist system.


And, if we are to believe Fidel's words in his interview 100 horas con Fidel CastroYes because the words of capitalist dictators are more trustworthy than the material circumstances.


what is usually perceived as internment of homosexuals in labour camps after the revolution was, in fact, a reluctance of making homosexuals go through the compulsory military serviceSo capitalist totalitarianism as usual is acceptable as long as it's framed within a paternalistic justification?


the chance to join the revolutionary work comitees, the alternative to military work, done mainly by womenHow about, as an alternative to both, the abolition of wage and alienated labor?

[Queercommie Girl]

In my opinion, repression of homosexuality in Cuba in the 50s and 60s is a non-event. I mean, homosexuality was repressed in practically the whole western world in those years. Popular perceptions change with time, and the macho culture in the 60s and 70s was not down to a particular political system, but to the inequality and division that tradition (such as religious beliefs or cultural heritage) created, fuelled by capitalist need for social tension. Repression of homosexuality is not inherent to all kinds of capitalism, only those based on tradition, religion and chauvinism as methods of thought control. Liberal capitalism sees no problem in sexual orientation equality (they even see a market in it). The problem homosexuals faced in those years were the same in any political system, it was the "normal" way of thinking in that sexist and pathriarcal society.


Sounds like you think LGBT activism is not really a part of the socialist struggle of the working class, but a separate petit-bourgeois reformist struggle for democratic rights that socialists can ally with.

That's not really true, because homophobia and transphobia are inherent in every kind of class society.

Historically, only primitive communist societies treated LGBT people equally, because they had no family and no private property.

Today, some LGBT human rights organisations under liberal capitalism tend to alienate trans people, because they consider transgenderism "not respectable" by their middle-class bourgeois cultural standards. The only way for a gay man to gain equality under capitalism is if he dresses and behaves exactly like a straight bourgeois man, except for in the bedroom.

[Queercommie Girl]

"Genocide" is a vague term referring to the destruction of a people. In the long term sense, the full integration of a once-isolated Cuban state system into the global liberal market (with the requisite cuts in social programs, etc.) is genocidal to the Cuban people. Not all genocide is Auschwitz.



Yes, it's fairly easy to declare something a "non-event" if it did not impact you personally...I wonder what those who were impacted would say....

And it still is, for the most part. If everyone else is doing it, does that make it OK for Cuba to do it too, especially when proponents uphold the Cuban state as a supposed alternative?

This is nothing more than bourgeois determinism that eschews the emphasis on the historical responsibility of individuals.

In other words, capitalist conditions prevailed in post-revolutionary Cuba

So are you arguing that the Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba was more "chauvinistic" than liberal capitalism? Almost reads like liberal anti-communist apologism....

Yet the market for queer culture is only made available to a privileged strata of queer yuppies, the queer masses are left to rot in the closet by the liberal capitalist system.

Yes because the words of capitalist dictators are more trustworthy than the material circumstances.

So capitalist totalitarianism as usual is acceptable as long as it's framed within a paternalistic justification?

How about, as an alternative to both, the abolition of wage and alienated labor?

I disagree with your ultra-leftist evaluation of Cuba, but I largely agree with your opinion on LGBT issues.

[McCroskey]

Well, I was not talking about the Cuban goverment, or any political system. I was merely pointing out that homophobia was widespread in those years due to cultural heritage. Even the anarchists in Spain in the civil war were openly homophobic. Standards have changed now, thanks to progressive LGTB fights for equal rights. If you choose to analyse every sentence I write looking for traces of different ideological tendencies or political statements, well, it's must be quite a boring hobby, but then again if you enjoy it...

[McCroskey]

".
Yes, it's fairly easy to declare something a "non-event" if it did not impact you personally...I wonder what those who were impacted would say....


By non-event I meant that it was something that couldn't be linked to whatever ideology the Cuban state followed, because it was a cultural issue. Thus, Cuba being homophobic back in the 50s, is a non-event, meaning that it´s not a peculiarity of that particular regime, but a common global cultural issue. It´s like saying "France, back in the XIX century, was a very pathriarcal society", of course, the whole world was.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I was not talking about the Cuban goverment, or any political system. I was merely pointing out that homophobia was widespread in those years due to cultural heritage. Even the anarchists in Spain in the civil war were openly homophobic. Standards have changed now, thanks to progressive LGTB fights for equal rights. If you choose to analyse every sentence I write looking for traces of different ideological tendencies or political statements, well, it's must be quite a boring hobby, but then again if you enjoy it...

You should know that no movement can be considered independent of its socio-economic and political basis.

Your view of the LGBT movement as a whole is like "an abstract reformist movement in a social vacuum".

You fail to recognise the fact that homophobia/transphobia is inherent in class society. In recent years conditions have improved for LGBT people solely as a result of grassroots mass struggle, which is mostly proletarian in its class character anyway.

When Marxists analysis anything, they must always assume a class perspective. LGBT politics is no different.

[Peter The Painter]

so if i persecuted gay, or trans people, the apologised for it, that would be ok?

:(


Fidel is a fidelista, not a revolutionary.

[x359594]

In my opinion, repression of homosexuality in Cuba in the 50s and 60s is a non-event...

Only for those who didn't suffer the repression.

[Obs]

so if i persecuted gay, or trans people, the apologised for it, that would be ok?

:(


Fidel is a fidelista, not a revolutionary.
Except for the part where he led an actual revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

so if i persecuted gay, or trans people, the apologised for it, that would be ok?

:(


Actually it depends on what the person did, but if he/she is really sincere about it, forgiveness is possible.



Fidel is a fidelista, not a revolutionary.


Obviously we should put our trust not in any kind of personality cult figure like Castro, but rather in the democratic worker's movement itself. But strategically speaking, especially since he has already apologised, is it really conducive to be anti-Cuba now and side with the imperialist camp?

[Peter The Painter]

I support the workers of Cuba, and hope, they will progress from having their government, sell their fruit and sugar, and resources, and take the means of production into their own hands.

Being Anti Castro Is not Anti Cuban or pro Imperialist.

Is it conductive to imply, the cuban people need some daddy figuire, otherwise, they couldnt manage their own running of society?

seriously, if you want to call me out for not backing a guy, who is in a party, that is just the new rulling lass, then seriously, i dont know what to say.

[Queercommie Girl]

I support the workers of Cuba, and hope, they will progress from having their government, sell their fruit and sugar, and resources, and take the means of production into their own hands.

Being Anti Castro Is not Anti Cuban or pro Imperialist.

Is it conductive to imply, the cuban people need some daddy figuire, otherwise, they couldnt manage their own running of society?

seriously, if you want to call me out for not backing a guy, who is in a party, that is just the new rulling lass, then seriously, i dont know what to say.

Well I think I said I don't agree with any kind of "personality cult".

But seriously though, don't you think it is somewhat too abstract for you to think that you can mechanically separate "Cuba" from "Castro", since it was Castro that initiated the Cuban revolution in the first place?

I agree Cuba is still a deformed worker's state though.

[Peter The Painter]

Well, there was already anti Batista movements, he just happened to be the one to topple the regime, but i mean,so what, if i pushed you out of the way of a car, should you be affiliated with me forever because of it?

Castro is a opportunist, and until his senile ass is dead or ousted, Cubas resources will be whored off, they will keep introducing market reforms, and before you know it, you will have the bordellos back.

But also,just because cuba is better under castro, than under Batista, does that legitimse his rule?

Let him fucking cut cane all day, instead of drinking rum and puffing cigars, like the proverbial fatcat.

Until the workers have total control, and cuba no longer sells its produce on the market, it is not worth defending, or upholding.

[Queercommie Girl]

Let him fucking cut cane all day, instead of drinking rum and puffing cigars, like the proverbial fatcat.


Ok so it's not absolutely egalitarian. But surely Castro is still significantly more frugal than your average bourgeois?



Until the workers have total control, and cuba no longer sells its produce on the market, it is not worth defending, or upholding.


But wouldn't it be easier to get more control for workers in Cuba if the system as a whole is not actually conquered by Western imperialism totally, which objectively you might be contributing to unconsciously if you take an explicitly anti-Castro line? Shouldn't we defend the deformed worker's state externally even though more democracy is required internally?

[Peter The Painter]

Well just becasue I denounce castro, it isnt fair to say i am unconsciously allowing imperialism.

If you do not defend Stalin are you defending the white army financed by England and the US.. No!

If you do not advocate anti Peado Vigilantes, are you defending pedophilia, .. fuck no!

Do not twist things.

I am pro worker, so are you defending the state, by defending a politician, even if just from imperialism?


Never compromise, it leads to the betrayalof the workers cause

[Queercommie Girl]

Well just becasue I denounce castro, it isnt fair to say i am unconsciously allowing imperialism.

If you do not defend Stalin are you defending the white army financed by England and the US.. No!

If you do not advocate anti Peado Vigilantes, are you defending pedophilia, .. fuck no!

Do not twist things.

I am pro worker, so are you defending the state, by defending a politician, even if just from imperialism?


Never compromise, it leads to the betrayalof the workers cause

I'm not saying you are subjectively responsible for anything, but what happens objectively might not always be what you intend.

Wouldn't be easier to continue the revolution with the gains already made underneath you rather than starting from scratch all over again?

[Peter The Painter]

Well, the thing is, i see cuba having more and more reforms, and becoming more capitalist, so it isnt a matterof building to real socialism, its a matter of unravelling all progress until cuba is Hiati 2.

But i support ww2, as, the soldiers reason for fighting, ie to defeat fascism, was different from the rulling class, but in cuba, al;ot of people are Apolitical, due to now, seeing "communism(castro leninist revisionism)" as pretty shit, just like capitalism.

There is a big problem with delinquency in the youth, as people are so dissilusioned in cuba.

[Queercommie Girl]

Do you have some sources for your claims here?

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Except for the part where he led an actual revolution.

Communism is not a political revolution, it's a total cultural war against capitalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Communism is not a political revolution, it's a total cultural war against capitalism.

It's not a cultural war, it's a socio-economic war.

Anyone who thinks "culture" is primary is turning base and superstructure upside-down.

Wait! Isn't Engels dressed in a bourgeois man's suit? Surely he can't be a socialist then!

Banal cultural critique, like attacking McDonalds (the type of food rather than the business) culturally, is a complete waste of time.

[McCroskey]

You should know that no movement can be considered independent of its socio-economic and political basis.

Your view of the LGBT movement as a whole is like "an abstract reformist movement in a social vacuum".

You fail to recognise the fact that homophobia/transphobia is inherent in class society. In recent years conditions have improved for LGBT people solely as a result of grassroots mass struggle, which is mostly proletarian in its class character anyway.

When Marxists analysis anything, they must always assume a class perspective. LGBT politics is no different.

You may see being gay as a movement, I only see as a sexual option. Being gay has not a class factor to it.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Being gay has not a class factor to it.

Yes it does.

[Queercommie Girl]

You may see being gay as a movement, I only see as a sexual option. Being gay has not a class factor to it.

Actually the existence of a LGBT movement is an objective social reality. Ever watched the news? And any element in social reality can potentially be analysed along class lines.

Being gay in itself has no class factor, but why gays are discriminated against has its roots in the emergence of class society.

Furthermore, it was only due to the grassroots struggles of the LGBT community in recent years that conditions have improved for LGBT people in general. Have you ever heard of the Gay Liberation Front?

A book I recommend (it's from a Trotskyist perspective):

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11338

[fa2991]

Looks like some people on here need to do their research about the Castro administration. You can't just assume it's cliche homphobic "Stalinism" and move on with your day. It's much more nuanced than that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Looks like some people on here need to do their research about the Castro administration. You can't just assume it's cliche homphobic "Stalinism" and move on with your day. It's much more nuanced than that.

Stalinism generally speaking was homophobic and transphobic, though to different extents in different countries. That's not a "cliche", that's a fact. In Mao's China there was never an explicit law against homosexuality like there was in Stalin's USSR, but in practice homosexuality was often criminalised under a related sexual law as a kind of "lumpenised sexual behaviour".

Was Cuba different? Maybe.

But burying one's head in history isn't really much point anyway. If Castro today is sincere about his apologies, then the issue is over. As someone who believes that proletarian democracy lies at the heart of every genuine socialist movement, the key is to engage with the masses, what Mao calls the "mass line", rather than looking up at what the bureaucrats may say about LGBT issues.

[Das war einmal]

There is still much discrimination against gays. In The Netherlands, often considered the most liberal capitalist society, there is a rise of attacks on homosexuals as of late. The bourgeois press states these attacks are primarily done by minorities, which gives rise to discrimination against these minorities.

I'm not denying that is really happening though, especially in Amsterdam, there are assault by people of Morrocan decent, it's a given fact. It's making me feel very uncomfortable, because you can't deny it is happening. At the same time, gays are being (verbally and physically) assaulted by ethnic Dutch in other parts of the country. This is no excuse though. It does explain that it's not really a cultural thing, rather something ignorant people are more eager to do.

What does this has to do with a topic? I consider human rights and especially those considering individual freedom, a privilege, that only develop after a society as a whole is becoming more developed. These human rights that much westerners now take for granted, are only developed in the last 60 years. Only in the 80's and 90's homosexuality became 'common' in The Netherlands. And even now its not as it should be.

Fidel Castro has taken lead of his country in a far far more difficult time and place then The Netherlands. He had probably other things in mind, like say the Invasion at the bay of pigs at that time then the emancipation of homosexuals (thats not to say that the emancipation is a trivial thing, but first you have to survive before you thrive). He now expresses sorry for the fact that he overlooked this problem.

This is why I consider Fidel Castro one of the greatest man and leaders alive today.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is still much discrimination against gays. In The Netherlands, often considered the most liberal capitalist society, there is a rise of attacks on homosexuals as of late. The bourgeois press states these attacks are primarily done by minorities, which gives rise to discrimination against these minorities.

I'm not denying that is really happening though, especially in Amsterdam, there are assault by people of Morrocan decent, it's a given fact. It's making me feel very uncomfortable, because you can't deny it is happening. At the same time, gays are being (verbally and physically) assaulted by ethnic Dutch in other parts of the country. This is no excuse though. It does explain that it's not really a cultural thing, rather something ignorant people are more eager to do.

What does this has to do with a topic? I consider human rights and especially those considering individual freedom, a privilege, that only develop after a society as a whole is becoming more developed. These human rights that much westerners now take for granted, are only developed in the last 60 years. Only in the 80's and 90's homosexuality became 'common' in The Netherlands. And even now its not as it should be.


I don't think you should ignore the transgendered population. Probably for them things are even more difficult than for LGB people.



Fidel Castro has taken lead of his country in a far far more difficult time and place then The Netherlands. He had probably other things in mind, like say the Invasion at the bay of pigs at that time then the emancipation of homosexuals (thats not to say that the emancipation is a trivial thing, but first you have to survive before you thrive). He now expresses sorry for the fact that he overlooked this problem.

This is why I consider Fidel Castro one of the greatest man and leaders alive today.There is no point to be anti-Castro, sure, but what is the point of focussing on some kind of "personality worship" rather than democratically engaging with the working masses?

You sound like if the objective economic situation is bad, then somehow LGBT people should just "accept their fate" and hope to fight for liberation on another day.

Human rights is not a privilege, it is a basic democratic requirement.

To think that only rich countries can care about LGBT rights is ridiculous, since modern South Africa was actually the country that first explicitly included LGBT equality in its constitution and impoverished Iran actually has one of the most progressive policies on transgenderism. (Not to deny its homophobic policies of course)

[Das war einmal]

I don't think you should ignore the transgendered population. Probably for them things are even more difficult than for LGB people.

There is no point to be anti-Castro, sure, but what is the point of focussing on some kind of "personality worship" rather than democratically engaging with the working masses?

You sound like if the objective economic situation is bad, then somehow LGBT people should just "accept their fate" and hope to fight for liberation on another day.

Human rights is not a privilege, it is a basic democratic requirement.

To think that only rich countries can care about LGBT rights is ridiculous, since modern South Africa was actually the country that first explicitly included LGBT equality in its constitution and impoverished Iran actually has one of the most progressive policies on transgenderism. (Not to deny its homophobic policies of course)

Nowhere have I said that they should 'accept their fate'. I only said that its natural for individual human rights to develop after there has been an improve of the social-economic standards. Racism and discrimination are often the result of ignorance and lack of education.

[Das war einmal]

It takes great effort for a communist party to educate people with backwards ideas. They have to be very tactful and often religious/ right wing leaders take this opportunity to organize anti-communist sentiments. Next to that: people in the communist party need to be educated about emancipation too.

See Afghanistan: the leading communist party reforms for emancipation gave the Muhjahedeen opportunity to advocate hate against the CP.

[Queercommie Girl]

It takes great effort for a communist party to educate people with backwards ideas. They have to be very tactful and often religious/ right wing leaders take this opportunity to organize anti-communist sentiments. Next to that: people in the communist party need to be educated about emancipation too.


Ok.

Maybe you are not consciously doing this, but I still don't think you are being inclusive of trans people in your evaluation of LGBT issues here.

[Das war einmal]

Ok.

Maybe you are not consciously doing this, but I still don't think you are being inclusive of trans people in your evaluation of LGBT issues here.

Not consciously no, but I don't know a lot about that particular issue. I heard Cuba funds sex change operation so, that's good news.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not consciously no, but I don't know a lot about that particular issue. I heard Cuba funds sex change operation so, that's good news.

Of course, Cuba has a progressive policy in this area now.

[Homo Songun]

Stalinism generally speaking was homophobic and transphobic, though to different extents in different countries. That's not a "cliche", that's a fact. In Mao's China there was never an explicit law against homosexuality like there was in Stalin's USSR, but in practice homosexuality was often criminalised under a related sexual law as a kind of "lumpenised sexual behaviour".

Was Cuba different? Maybe.


True, but you'd probably be stretching to say that homophobia was a special defining feature of Stalinism. Homophobic attitudes permeate society, including socialists of all stripes. Marx and Engels exchanged disparaging comments about gays. In France, the Trotskyists of the OCI and the Lutte Ovriere were both known for being extremely anti-gay. The US' Socialist Workers Party expelled gays and lesbians for being "liabilities" and so on. On the flip side, Harry Hay, a Stalinist is generally credited for being a pioneer of Gay rights, and is noted for his "anti-assimiliationist" stance in later life.

On thing is for sure, life is far better for people of all orientations under Socialism than it is under capitalism, and any critiques of policy that Cuba or some other country has had or continues to have ought to keep that in mind.

[Queercommie Girl]

True, but you'd probably be stretching to say that homophobia was a special defining feature of Stalinism. Homophobic attitudes permeate society, including socialists of all stripes. Marx and Engels exchanged disparaging comments about gays. In France, the Trotskyists of the OCI and the Lutte Ovriere were both known for being extremely anti-gay. The US' Socialist Workers Party expelled gays and lesbians for being "liabilities" and so on. On the flip side, Harry Hay, a Stalinist is generally credited for being a pioneer of Gay rights, and is noted for his "anti-assimiliationist" stance in later life.

On thing is for sure, life is far better for people of all orientations under Socialism than it is under capitalism, and any critiques of policy that Cuba or some other country has had or continues to have ought to keep that in mind.

Nevertheless the Bolsheviks did explicitly legalise homosexuality in 1917 after the October revolution which was overturned by Stalin by his Article 131 in 1931. This is something that cannot be ignored. It's a basic fact.

Sure, it's not all black-and-white, I mean there are even anarchists who are anti-LGBT. But generally speaking the majority of Trotskyists are not anti-LGBT whereas until quite recently, the majority of Stalinists were. Things have changed somewhat even for many Stalinists though in recent years.

[Homo Songun]

But generally speaking the majority of Trotskyists are not anti-LGBT whereas until quite recently, the majority of Stalinists were. Things have changed somewhat even for many Stalinists though in recent years.Nah. I tend to think it was about the same across the board until the late 1960s: mostly bad, with some bright spots. If it wasn't, then the Trots would have made a much bigger stink about it, don't you think?

Anyways, it probably doesn't make sense to talk of a monolithic "Stalinist" position on x or Trotskyist position on y. The Workers World Party has the interesting Lavender and Red (http://www.workers.org/lavender-red/) series, which documents the nuanced position of LGBT people in the historical communist movement. In particular I highly recommend chapters 18 through 24 dealing with the GDR, which could perhaps could be considered a classically Stalinist country. According to the WWP, official policy there was suprisingly nuanced, and steadily improved throughout that countries existence.

[McCroskey]

Actually the existence of a LGBT movement is an objective social reality. Ever watched the news? And any element in social reality can potentially be analysed along class lines.

Being gay in itself has no class factor, but why gays are discriminated against has its roots in the emergence of class society.

Furthermore, it was only due to the grassroots struggles of the LGBT community in recent years that conditions have improved for LGBT people in general. Have you ever heard of the Gay Liberation Front?

A book I recommend (it's from a Trotskyist perspective):

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11338

I agree. But I am not talking about LGBT liberation movement. I am talking about the popular discrimination of LGBT people (not activists) in the first two thirds of the XXth century. It came from a rooted macho mentality (are you familiar with latin american culture?) that was present even in revolutionary organisations. The LGBT movement had to fight within socialist and revolutionary movements as well.
Struggle against discrimination is the centre of revolutionary struggle, but these ideas don't necessarily come only from the capitalist social practice. Other more traditional social practices (especially religious) embedded these repressive midsets in the minds of the general population over centuries. To believe that the fight for socialism will inevitably overcome these prejudices overnight is, at best, a tad optimistic. LGBT will still have to fight a cultural struggle for total acceptance, even within socialist societies. LGBT activists cannot expect a radical change in the relations of production to do away with sexual prejudices in a blow. Fidel Castro´s Cuba in the 60s experimented a total transformation in economic and social terms. The cultural change comes through education, and it cannot be done overnight. The world was utterly homophobic back then, in socialist and imperialist societies. The LGBT people, as any gay communist who was active in the 60s will tell you, were no more safe from discrimination in socialist environments than they were in capitalist ones, and that is because it was not inherent to the capitalist model of exploitation, it was just a common trait of the traditional ways of those times, occasionaly used by capitalists in their populist search for enemies to divide the working class.

I am familiar with the book. Best regards!

[Queercommie Girl]

Nah. I tend to think it was about the same across the board until the late 1960s: mostly bad, with some bright spots. If it wasn't, then the Trots would have made a much bigger stink about it, don't you think?

Anyways, it probably doesn't make sense to talk of a monolithic "Stalinist" position on x or Trotskyist position on y. The Workers World Party has the interesting Lavender and Red (http://www.workers.org/lavender-red/) series, which documents the nuanced position of LGBT people in the historical communist movement. In particular I highly recommend chapters 18 through 24 dealing with the GDR, which could perhaps could be considered a classically Stalinist country. According to the WWP, official policy there was suprisingly nuanced, and steadily improved throughout that countries existence.

Whatever you say, you cannot deny the fact that Stalin did explicit outlaw homosexuality in 1931 with Article 131, thus reversing the progressive gain made by the Bolsheviks in 1917 when they legalised homosexuality.

Do you deny that the Bolsheviks legalised homosexuality after the October revolution?

From personal experience: I can't even tell the Chinese Maoists I have contact with that I'm queer, whereas this is not a problem with the Trots I have contact with.

So nothing changed for LGBT people until the "magical 60s"? What an idealistic account of history.

[Queercommie Girl]

It came from a rooted macho mentality (are you familiar with latin american culture?) that was present even in revolutionary organisations.


I don't have to be familiar with Latin American culture, because frankly every human culture is "macho" due to the fundamental sexist nature of class society.



To believe that the fight for socialism will inevitably overcome these prejudices overnight is, at best, a tad optimistic. LGBT will still have to fight a cultural struggle for total acceptance, even within socialist societies. LGBT activists cannot expect a radical change in the relations of production to do away with sexual prejudices in a blow.


No form of oppression can go away automatically without the subjective factor, the people actually fighting against the oppression. LGBT discrimination can no more "automatically" go away after a socialist revolution than sexism and racism can.

However, a successful socialist revolution would provide the objective grounds for such forms of discrimination to disappear. Just as racism and sexism have roots in class society, so do homophobia and transphobia. Of course, it will not go away without people consciously struggling for it. The same with racism and sexism.



The LGBT people, as any gay communist who was active in the 60s will tell you, were no more safe from discrimination in socialist environments than they were in capitalist ones, and that is because it was not inherent to the capitalist model of exploitation, it was just a common trait of the traditional ways of those times, occasionaly used by capitalists in their populist search for enemies to divide the working class.


However, the capitalist ideals of the "family" does make things much more difficult for LGBT people and the bourgeois family is a fundamental part of the capitalist productive relation in society.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

True, but you'd probably be stretching to say that homophobia was a special defining feature of Stalinism. Homophobic attitudes permeate society, including socialists of all stripes. Marx and Engels exchanged disparaging comments about gays. In France, the Trotskyists of the OCI and the Lutte Ovriere were both known for being extremely anti-gay. The US' Socialist Workers Party expelled gays and lesbians for being "liabilities" and so on. On the flip side, Harry Hay, a Stalinist is generally credited for being a pioneer of Gay rights, and is noted for his "anti-assimiliationist" stance in later life.

On thing is for sure, life is far better for people of all orientations under Socialism than it is under capitalism, and any critiques of policy that Cuba or some other country has had or continues to have ought to keep that in mind.

See, I hate reasong such as this. You seem to be hinting that just because the homophobia, transphobia or whatever occurs in a Socialist society, it is somehow better for those victimised, than if it occurred in a Capitalist society. Utter shite!

Stalin was somewhat homophobic and somewhat anti-semitic. Of that, there is no doubt. I find it incredible that many Marxist-Leninists, rather than accept this and move on, constantly try to defend the dear leader against all manner of accurate criticism.

[Homo Songun]

See, I hate reasong such as this. You seem to be hinting that just because the homophobia, transphobia or whatever occurs in a Socialist society, it is somehow better for those victimised, than if it occurred in a Capitalist society.

Well, I'm sorry you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you ought to focus on the plain meaning of what I am saying instead of trying to uncover whatever you think I secretly "seem to be hinting" at?

Its simple really. Under capitalism, gays along with straights endure wage slavery and alienation alongside the special oppression arising from the circumstances of their sexuality or gender. On the other hand, under socialism, gays often endured "only" the latter.

In no way is this denying the oppression that LGBT people have endured under socialism or any other kind of system, nor does it excuse the homophobia that socialists of all stripes have been guilty of.

Is that clear enough?


Stalin was somewhat homophobic and somewhat anti-semitic.LOL. You read it on Wikipedia, so it must be true.

[Homo Songun]

So nothing changed for LGBT people until the "magical 60s"? What an idealistic account of history.

How is it magical or idealistic (do you mean idealist?) to acknowledge that Gay Liberation made its biggest strides beginning in the late 60s?

[The Feral Underclass]

This must be rather embarrassing for all the Leninists who maintained for years that Castro and his regime had never persecuted the LGBT community.

I told you so, I think is the correct phrase.

[Homo Songun]

This must be rather embarrassing for all the Leninists who maintained for years that Castro and his regime had never persecuted the LGBT community.

In addition to being embarrassed, any such Leninists (if they exist) would be quite stupid, since the Cubans themselves have been talking about said persecution and trying to rectify it (http://www.walterlippmann.com/lgbt-cuba.html) for many years now. Mariela Castro, Raul's daughter, is a prominent activist for LGBT rights on the island.

[Queercommie Girl]

How is it magical or idealistic (do you mean idealist?) to acknowledge that Gay Liberation made its biggest strides beginning in the late 60s?

It is a mistake to ignore earlier attempts at fighting for LGBT liberation, such as the work done by German socialists in the early 20th century, or the legalisation of homosexuality done by the Bolsheviks in 1917.

It is also a mistake to have a revisionist account of history and ignore the fact that Stalin did explicitly outlaw homosexuality in 1931, thus reversing the earlier progressive gain in 1917 under Lenin, no matter what views most contemporary Stalinists have on LGBT issues.

LGBT liberation did progress dramatically in the 1960s, sure, but the modern LGBT movement did not begin then, but rather began half a century earlier in Germany and Russia among the socialists there.