Coincidentally a lot of those people are also reactionary as fuck and one of the reasons they want the return of the is regime is that it didn't have the geyropean degenerate liberalism corrupting their kids. You know those weird reactionary British Stalinists that ar white terfs? Yeah like that but your average member of society over 50. A lot of the far right nazi people also somehow have a lot of nostalgia for the old days. People like me (trans) would be locked up in the madhouse and treated with antipsychotics and sedatives. This in addition to the already barbaric treatment there. How do I know? Most of my psych professors earned their professorship back then and didn't change their views one iota. And I had placements in its institutions that hadbt moved a bit. And thats one of the aspects.
Make no mistake, even though there were baaic material guarantees for the majority, it still was a deeply reactionary society and regime. Compared to the US it may have been better in some aspects, but compared to the social democracies of northern and western Europe it was bad folks. It is a complex thing and it's difficult to just quantify with a single good or bad, but it pretty much leans towards the second.
And this is something that seriously bothers me about a lot of USSR stans, y'all motherfuckers don't see the bad aspects, don't know them, and only focus on the good ones and construct a narrative that is just as erroneous as the one capitalist propaganda made.
The USSR treated LGBT persons abhorrently. Period.
I don't think anybody believe that a future socialist state should be a carbon copy of the AES states of the 20th century. Things like LGBT rights is something I feel there is a broad consensus on the left about doing much better in a future socialist state.
If I am to defend the AES countries a little you have to see them in their historic context. Compared to what we today would consider acceptable standards of LGBT rights the AES countries had an abysmal record but if you compare them to capitalist nations in the same time period things are more nuanced. For instance east Germany were more advanced on LGBT rights than west Germany.
You can also say that the nationalism, homophobia and transphobia in Russia today was only made worse by the regression to capitalism. Ditching the material safety afforded during Soviet times gave rise to fear, anger and competition that was channeled into hate towards LGBT people and foreigners.
Analyzing states that got started in the turn of the last century and finding out they didnt live up to a modern standard is a bit harsh. Most places now don't live up to a modern standard.
If I am to defend the AES countries a little you have to see them in their historic context.
Definitely. WIth that, people in these discussions do tend to overfocus on East Germany or the western part of the USSR, simply cause these were the big visible spaces. And in general Eastern Germany was materially better and more developed.
You can also say that the nationalism, homophobia and transphobia in Russia today was only made worse by the regression to capitalism
Eeeh.... yes and no. The nationalism definitely, because there were major developments in conspipracy theories and their spread after the fall of the socialist regimes. At the same time, there was definitely a strong nationalistic streak even before that, well embedded in the educational institutions. And homophobia and transphobia I think have not changed or have even slightly improved. But hatred towards foreigners would depend - i.e. in South East Europe hatred towards muslims (turks) was a major part of educational propaganda, since they were a major threat at the time. Similar with Greeks.
To my understanding the period from 1992 to now has seen an advance in LGBT rights and social acceptance of LGBT people across industrialised nations. There are notable exceptions, but in broad terms things are better now than back then. This means that Russia is falling behind by stagnating.
Current Russian nationalism and homophobia is certainly a continuation of that of the Soviet Union. A future socialist state needs to be less culturally regressive. The revolution should not just be an economic one but also a social.
Depends on where really. Things were kinda improving after the fall of the regimes, but in recent years have taken a turn for the worse. I would argue in the last couple of years the situation may have reversed to a point where things are much worse than before, because these issues have become a lot more visibile and discussed, and there has been a much stronger reaction.
Imo any USSR , be it anarchist , socdem or neoliberal would have those reactionary and backwards views socialy for decades on end. Its not some feature of that system or of marxism leninism more so that it was a direct result of a wholy illetaraty , deeply religious (with the orthodox church being a hugely significant factor ) and middle ages society up untill the revolution. They never went through any liberal phase on any level before that. Thats not to say that the party tried to be progressive on lgbt or help them but failed but that too was a byproduct of that society at that point in time
When you compare it to socialism built on less backwards,less religious, more educated and more advanced socioeconic foundations like eastern Germany you can see progressivness on this topic ahead of even western liberal democracies at that time.Better than its direct capitalist counterpart, west germany. Cuba too ,after initial mistakes , managed to crush machismo and social conservativism and it has been very solid regarding lgbt+ issues copared to any country on the region and even compared to many western ones
Agreed. I think there is a reason why Marx postulated things as progressive phases, and he was explicit of the freedoms each subsequent one brings. But I think this also tells us, that these are not things we should take for granted, and that we should be taking an active position on these things. Your comparison on Cuba taking action on this vs. the "Bourgeoise degeneracy" stand of Eastern Europe is a good example of this.
but compared to the social democracies of northern and western Europe it was bad folks
ummmm, no European country even recognized civil unions of gay people until 1989, and there's what the British did to Alan Turing....your claim is really ahistorical
I am not talking about civil unions, things go way beyond the legal and on the paper things when it comes to social issues. There is how something appears and is treated in society, what place are these people allocated, how they are seen, is it ok to be open about these things and so on. And in all these factors the West was and remains much much much better. And I dont care about ahistorical, since I know what my psychiatry teachers taught me, or what the soviet era textbooks said, or the experiences of older people that have been through this. Like dude, for me this is something I have seen first or second hand, not some theoretical "the British did Alan Turing" thing.
There's no good way to have this conversation with it seeming like I'm minimising your experience.
imo all the infrastructure, liberalism and cultural space to enjoy sexual freedoms that we have are built on the blood of colonised peoples. The imperialists have stated they will use anything as a trojan horse to continue their control, without morality. I don't think we can blame these peoples for being suspicious of "decadent western values" after fully considering the history.
I'm pretty maximalist pro trans. The persepective of the 80% of the global population outside the imperial core also cannot be ignored, given the bloody, exploitative history. The question is how to reconcile the two.
Not a debatebro post - posted because I made basically exactly the same post in reply to someone else a couple of hours ago.
I think the exploitation and enslavement of colonized people is a separate issue to an extend. At the same time, the decadent western values things was used as a propaganda point and fully embraced.
I do believe that this was due to these countries mostly skipping the industrialization and liberalisation that countries in the West experienced, but still doesnt change the fact that the Soviets have a pretty shitty track records here, whereas bourgeoise countries do not. This is in no way ignoring and minimizing the exploitation. You can say that the bougie countries did something good, and that does not invalidate the bad. In fact we want to learn from the good and make sure we dont repeat the bad.
Idk, maybe you have a point, sometimes with the memes and stuff it seems like the critical element is lost. Which sucks because there are so many important lessons to be learned from critically examining the way that soviet and soviet adjacent regimes failed.
Much like China the USSR is not my ideal form of government but to not be critical in taking both the successful and disastrous elements into consideration we can’t improve in our next attempts
it still was a deeply reactionary society and regime. Compared to the US it may have been better in some aspects, but compared to the social democracies of northern and western Europe it was bad folks
But now you're literally defending western imperialism because the USSR wasn't very good on one issue you care about?
No. I am doing a comparison. Saying that Western Imperialism was better on this or that point is not defending Western Imperialism. Criticism involves looking at the things you suck at and the things the other side is good at and is important part of any analysis.
Uhm... wut. Two things can exist at the same time, and endorsing one does not mean endorsing the other. It is called critical support. The social democracies of Western Europe treat LGBTQ people OK, and even provide treatment for trans people and allow them to change their documents is in no way endorsement of the enslavement of the Global South (and isnt that done mostly by the US these days anyway? (and no this is not erasing the colonial past of these countries)).
That's not because of some virtuous thing about those countries, it's just a byproduct of their development that the USSR would have gone through as well as someone else pointed out (Russia went from having a monarch to socialist very quickly), like the GDR was doing. And it isn't like the colonies these countries maintained were or are "LGBTQ-friendly". I think Western European countries were stable and people could actually push for improved social relations because they weren't as focused on just surviving (as the people those countries subjugate around the world are). It's kind of hard to create advocacy groups and stuff when you're trying to get enough to eat.
For example, most socialist or socialist led states today are non-discriminatory agaisnt LGBT people and it seems like people are generally accepted, with the exception of maybe the DPRK since we don't really know much about stuff there but I haven't heard anything explicitly bad in terms of policies. But the DPRK is also the least developed and probably the most focused on improving immediate material conditions. I think you're basically asking for people to change their entire cultural outlook on something they probably don't even think about that often in the first place, while they're still just trying to get by like anyone else. We are all the most focused on issues that affect ourselves, basically.
It just seems weird that you would basiclally decry all support for the USSR among old people who lived in it as being for reactionary reasons, then say that the USSR "stans" bother you, and that European countries were actually better in some respects. That just seems like a weird characterization of the whole thing.
This is a good post, I need things like this to keep me in check when I start to get a little too uncritical in my support. I just wish the people around me weren't so heavily propagandized to think "gommunism doesn't work because the USSR collapsed" and that it was inferior to the US in every way. Then it would be easier for me to have more nuanced takes when I talk about it, you know?
Coincidentally a lot of those people are also reactionary as fuck and one of the reasons they want the return of the is regime is that it didn't have the geyropean degenerate liberalism corrupting their kids. You know those weird reactionary British Stalinists that ar white terfs? Yeah like that but your average member of society over 50. A lot of the far right nazi people also somehow have a lot of nostalgia for the old days. People like me (trans) would be locked up in the madhouse and treated with antipsychotics and sedatives. This in addition to the already barbaric treatment there. How do I know? Most of my psych professors earned their professorship back then and didn't change their views one iota. And I had placements in its institutions that hadbt moved a bit. And thats one of the aspects.
Make no mistake, even though there were baaic material guarantees for the majority, it still was a deeply reactionary society and regime. Compared to the US it may have been better in some aspects, but compared to the social democracies of northern and western Europe it was bad folks. It is a complex thing and it's difficult to just quantify with a single good or bad, but it pretty much leans towards the second.
And this is something that seriously bothers me about a lot of USSR stans, y'all motherfuckers don't see the bad aspects, don't know them, and only focus on the good ones and construct a narrative that is just as erroneous as the one capitalist propaganda made.
The USSR treated LGBT persons abhorrently. Period.
I don't think anybody believe that a future socialist state should be a carbon copy of the AES states of the 20th century. Things like LGBT rights is something I feel there is a broad consensus on the left about doing much better in a future socialist state.
If I am to defend the AES countries a little you have to see them in their historic context. Compared to what we today would consider acceptable standards of LGBT rights the AES countries had an abysmal record but if you compare them to capitalist nations in the same time period things are more nuanced. For instance east Germany were more advanced on LGBT rights than west Germany.
You can also say that the nationalism, homophobia and transphobia in Russia today was only made worse by the regression to capitalism. Ditching the material safety afforded during Soviet times gave rise to fear, anger and competition that was channeled into hate towards LGBT people and foreigners.
yeah it's mad funny when people in the country that only got rid of sodomy laws in........ oops 2003 accuse other countries of homophobia
Analyzing states that got started in the turn of the last century and finding out they didnt live up to a modern standard is a bit harsh. Most places now don't live up to a modern standard.
Definitely. WIth that, people in these discussions do tend to overfocus on East Germany or the western part of the USSR, simply cause these were the big visible spaces. And in general Eastern Germany was materially better and more developed.
Eeeh.... yes and no. The nationalism definitely, because there were major developments in conspipracy theories and their spread after the fall of the socialist regimes. At the same time, there was definitely a strong nationalistic streak even before that, well embedded in the educational institutions. And homophobia and transphobia I think have not changed or have even slightly improved. But hatred towards foreigners would depend - i.e. in South East Europe hatred towards muslims (turks) was a major part of educational propaganda, since they were a major threat at the time. Similar with Greeks.
To my understanding the period from 1992 to now has seen an advance in LGBT rights and social acceptance of LGBT people across industrialised nations. There are notable exceptions, but in broad terms things are better now than back then. This means that Russia is falling behind by stagnating.
Current Russian nationalism and homophobia is certainly a continuation of that of the Soviet Union. A future socialist state needs to be less culturally regressive. The revolution should not just be an economic one but also a social.
My point exactly.
Depends on where really. Things were kinda improving after the fall of the regimes, but in recent years have taken a turn for the worse. I would argue in the last couple of years the situation may have reversed to a point where things are much worse than before, because these issues have become a lot more visibile and discussed, and there has been a much stronger reaction.
Imo any USSR , be it anarchist , socdem or neoliberal would have those reactionary and backwards views socialy for decades on end. Its not some feature of that system or of marxism leninism more so that it was a direct result of a wholy illetaraty , deeply religious (with the orthodox church being a hugely significant factor ) and middle ages society up untill the revolution. They never went through any liberal phase on any level before that. Thats not to say that the party tried to be progressive on lgbt or help them but failed but that too was a byproduct of that society at that point in time
When you compare it to socialism built on less backwards,less religious, more educated and more advanced socioeconic foundations like eastern Germany you can see progressivness on this topic ahead of even western liberal democracies at that time.Better than its direct capitalist counterpart, west germany. Cuba too ,after initial mistakes , managed to crush machismo and social conservativism and it has been very solid regarding lgbt+ issues copared to any country on the region and even compared to many western ones
Agreed. I think there is a reason why Marx postulated things as progressive phases, and he was explicit of the freedoms each subsequent one brings. But I think this also tells us, that these are not things we should take for granted, and that we should be taking an active position on these things. Your comparison on Cuba taking action on this vs. the "Bourgeoise degeneracy" stand of Eastern Europe is a good example of this.
ummmm, no European country even recognized civil unions of gay people until 1989, and there's what the British did to Alan Turing....your claim is really ahistorical
I am not talking about civil unions, things go way beyond the legal and on the paper things when it comes to social issues. There is how something appears and is treated in society, what place are these people allocated, how they are seen, is it ok to be open about these things and so on. And in all these factors the West was and remains much much much better. And I dont care about ahistorical, since I know what my psychiatry teachers taught me, or what the soviet era textbooks said, or the experiences of older people that have been through this. Like dude, for me this is something I have seen first or second hand, not some theoretical "the British did Alan Turing" thing.
There's no good way to have this conversation with it seeming like I'm minimising your experience.
imo all the infrastructure, liberalism and cultural space to enjoy sexual freedoms that we have are built on the blood of colonised peoples. The imperialists have stated they will use anything as a trojan horse to continue their control, without morality. I don't think we can blame these peoples for being suspicious of "decadent western values" after fully considering the history.
I'm pretty maximalist pro trans. The persepective of the 80% of the global population outside the imperial core also cannot be ignored, given the bloody, exploitative history. The question is how to reconcile the two.
Not a debatebro post - posted because I made basically exactly the same post in reply to someone else a couple of hours ago.
I think the exploitation and enslavement of colonized people is a separate issue to an extend. At the same time, the decadent western values things was used as a propaganda point and fully embraced. I do believe that this was due to these countries mostly skipping the industrialization and liberalisation that countries in the West experienced, but still doesnt change the fact that the Soviets have a pretty shitty track records here, whereas bourgeoise countries do not. This is in no way ignoring and minimizing the exploitation. You can say that the bougie countries did something good, and that does not invalidate the bad. In fact we want to learn from the good and make sure we dont repeat the bad.
We are all critically supportive at best. I’ve never seen somebody be uncritically supportive of the USSR on here tbh
Idk, maybe you have a point, sometimes with the memes and stuff it seems like the critical element is lost. Which sucks because there are so many important lessons to be learned from critically examining the way that soviet and soviet adjacent regimes failed.
Much like China the USSR is not my ideal form of government but to not be critical in taking both the successful and disastrous elements into consideration we can’t improve in our next attempts
But now you're literally defending western imperialism because the USSR wasn't very good on one issue you care about?
No. I am doing a comparison. Saying that Western Imperialism was better on this or that point is not defending Western Imperialism. Criticism involves looking at the things you suck at and the things the other side is good at and is important part of any analysis.
The "social democracies of northern and western Europe" are enslaving the entire Global South along with the US, so it was not bad in comparison.
Uhm... wut. Two things can exist at the same time, and endorsing one does not mean endorsing the other. It is called critical support. The social democracies of Western Europe treat LGBTQ people OK, and even provide treatment for trans people and allow them to change their documents is in no way endorsement of the enslavement of the Global South (and isnt that done mostly by the US these days anyway? (and no this is not erasing the colonial past of these countries)).
That's not because of some virtuous thing about those countries, it's just a byproduct of their development that the USSR would have gone through as well as someone else pointed out (Russia went from having a monarch to socialist very quickly), like the GDR was doing. And it isn't like the colonies these countries maintained were or are "LGBTQ-friendly". I think Western European countries were stable and people could actually push for improved social relations because they weren't as focused on just surviving (as the people those countries subjugate around the world are). It's kind of hard to create advocacy groups and stuff when you're trying to get enough to eat.
For example, most socialist or socialist led states today are non-discriminatory agaisnt LGBT people and it seems like people are generally accepted, with the exception of maybe the DPRK since we don't really know much about stuff there but I haven't heard anything explicitly bad in terms of policies. But the DPRK is also the least developed and probably the most focused on improving immediate material conditions. I think you're basically asking for people to change their entire cultural outlook on something they probably don't even think about that often in the first place, while they're still just trying to get by like anyone else. We are all the most focused on issues that affect ourselves, basically.
It just seems weird that you would basiclally decry all support for the USSR among old people who lived in it as being for reactionary reasons, then say that the USSR "stans" bother you, and that European countries were actually better in some respects. That just seems like a weird characterization of the whole thing.
This is a good post, I need things like this to keep me in check when I start to get a little too uncritical in my support. I just wish the people around me weren't so heavily propagandized to think "gommunism doesn't work because the USSR collapsed" and that it was inferior to the US in every way. Then it would be easier for me to have more nuanced takes when I talk about it, you know?