From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: AGAINST CONSERVATISM--FOR COMMUNISM
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 21:44:36 -0500


Thiago asked what this all has to do with autonomism, to which my immediate 
response was nothing, that this is mostly wasted bandwidth (my own posts 
included) as I'm suspicious of the possibilities for success in (of maybe 
just totally uninterested in) conversations with homophobes.
That said, Tahir and someone else, I forget who, did make points about queer 
culture/lifestyle and subcultures as possible forms of resistance. I guess 
then the short answer to "what's this go to do with autonomism" (the short 
answer that's not a brush-off) would be something about the possible 
communist content of certain activities/relationships, depending on a bunch 
of factors. Argh, way too abstract, sorry. Anyway, without getting into a 
general theory of everything, what do folks think about this idea? There's a 
pretty good article on punk and autonomia on the net somewhere, I can chase 
up the URL if anyone's interested. Has anyone seen anything else like this? 
I think recently Multitudes carried stuff on ACT UP! - I'm not sure though 
as I don't read French.

cheers,
Nate



No more weekdays, they hanged Monday, shot Thursday, sliced up Friday! Every 
day is Sunday.

-Franca Rame and Dario Fo, "Waking Up"





>From: Michael Handelman <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: AUT: AGAINST CONSERVATISM--FOR COMMUNISM
>Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:36:58 -0800 (PST)
>
>Didn't the Kinsey Report on Human Sexual behavior,
>show that there is no such thing as a "pure
>homosexual" or a "pure heterosexual" rather, it's more
>like a spectrumthere are some people who are more
>inclined to heterosexual than homosexual, and some are
>more homosexual than heterosexual, but it is a mixture
>of homosexual AND heterosexual desire.
>
>
>--- Tom Messmer <messmer-AT-endpage.com> wrote:
> > Ilan,
> > I'm sorry about my lumping you in with Floyce's
> > silliness, but I was
> > responding to this:
> >
> > >>>   Homosexuality and other deviations in the
> > sexual domain
> >   are a deviation that is of entirely different
> > domain.
> >
> > "Deviation" is a value laden term, as in "filthy
> > deviates", but not
> > necessarily and apparently you didn't mean it that
> > way.
> >
> >
> >  >>> It is of the same processes of "mental
> > imprinting" like
> >   these that cause the new born duckling to follow
> > any thing
> >   of the correct size and speed encountered in few
> > hours
> >   after it get out of the eeg.
> >
> >   >>>The same process (though a bit milder) that
> > cause people to
> >   look for intimate partners who resemble the parent
> > of the
> >   opposite sex.
> >
> > I must admit I don't even understand what you mean
> > here by "mental
> > imprinting". There is some theoretical orientation
> > that I am unfamiliar
> > with at work here, would you mind elaborating some?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   >>>Even the reactionary establishment of mental
> > health re-labled
> >   the homosexuality as personality disturbance and
> > no more as illness.
> >
> > The reactionary establishment does not label
> > homosexuality as a
> > personality disturbance any more and has not for
> > some time, unless you
> > mean some fundamentalist christian clinician
> > somewhere?
> >
> > >>> I claim that humans are bi-sexual and those who
> > are
> > >>>"heterosexuals" or "homosexuals" are deprived of
> > some
> > >>> of the potential for joy love and pleasure due
> > to
> > >>> harsh capitalist upbringing.
> >
> > I would not necessarily agree that "humans are
> > bi-sexual", this seems
> > to be an essentialist position to me and therefore
> > proscribing.  If
> > someone prefers this or that, I say more power to
> > 'em, what's messed up
> > is that people don't tend to feel able to explore or
> > ask themselves if
> > there ARE options, this is the crux of the matter to
> > me and like you I
> > attribute this to the effects of Capitalist society.
> >
> >
> > >>> I do not regard my heterosexuality as less
> > deviant than the
> > >>> homosexuality and other limitations.
> >
> > Again, I wouldnt define any sexual orientation
> > necessarily as a
> > limitation.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> What is reactionary in tracing the horible
> > effects of capitalist
> > >>> upbringing on deprivation of people from inborn
> > options we all have?
> >
> > I agree completely as long as we are talking about
> > options. There is a
> > subtle but important difference to me between saying
> > "everybody is
> > naturally bisexual" which I seriously doubt(though
> > it would be nice :)
> > ) and "everyone ought to feel free to explore their
> > sexuality with a
> > free, fun and open spirit."
> >
> > >>
> > > As one who was not deprived of his bisexual
> > potentials you
> > > You could do better than defame or not caring.
> > > Ilan
> >
> > If I defamed, I apologize.  As far as not caring, I
> > obviously do care
> > or I wouldnt be on here, I meant more that the
> > "nature vs. nurture"
> > argument is very tired, seems obvious to me that its
> > a little of both
> > and differs from person to person, culture to
> > culture, etc.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list
> > aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
>http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---