Beautiful we’ve come full circle to exactly what the point is.
Government doctrine vs cultural norms. It doesn’t matter what the government says, it matters what the culture does. Half of what the USSR and communists claimed to stand for, they did not which is evident in their actions - anti-colonialism/engages in colonialism, pro women’s rights/women still lack representation and feminism repressed, pro worker’s rights/equal exploitation for all.
So maybe it doesn’t matter what the government says, maybe we have to analyze the culture and where it ended up today to see the changes and the impact of that change.
Ideas do not exist independently of their material conditions. By shifting from an analysis of material conditions and the social relations that spring from them to one of “culture,” you are placing ideas outside of their context in material reality, and moving to the realm of supernatural thinking. In other words, this is pure idealism and is anti-scientific. Idealism has more in common with fascism than it does with socialism, so I really do think you should be careful. Fascists use the “culture” argument to argue against immigration, in favor of colonialism, etc.
Nope I’m viewing the whole picture as it is, a whole. The claims and movements of a government do not happen separate from the culture and often you look at the culture to understand the real experience of people living under a government. Many places outlawed things that they didn’t or couldn’t actually enforce - homosexuality, drug use, freedom of speech for examples.
You aren’t viewing the whole picture, though. You’re abstracting the Soviet Union from its historical context and measuring it against standards of an entirely different historical era. Further, again, you are placing far too much of an emphasis on culture while treating it as though it exists independent from the society and the social relations compelled by it. This is an idealist argument, not a materialist one.
Here’s a simple exercise: why did women’s rights dramatically expand upon the implementation of socialism?
Honestly for the same reason it did in the west. There was a massive need for economic resources, manpower. And limiting half your workforce because culture was stupid and everyone realized that.
This is what was happening globally at the time as well. Even before the West made laws to support women in workforces, there were plenty of women working far before that too. Because laws aren’t the only thing that matters, culture does.
The economic basis of capitalism also reinforces the nuclear family, as you can treat domestic labor as unpaid labor for recreating the paid labor of the male worker. Socialism brought with it profound cultural changes as well as economic changes that put the Soviets ahead of the west, despite the west being capitalist for longer than Russia was.
Sweden still considered Homosexuality as a mental illness and was a country that practiced eugenics far into the 70s
Beautiful we’ve come full circle to exactly what the point is.
Government doctrine vs cultural norms. It doesn’t matter what the government says, it matters what the culture does. Half of what the USSR and communists claimed to stand for, they did not which is evident in their actions - anti-colonialism/engages in colonialism, pro women’s rights/women still lack representation and feminism repressed, pro worker’s rights/equal exploitation for all.
So maybe it doesn’t matter what the government says, maybe we have to analyze the culture and where it ended up today to see the changes and the impact of that change.
Ideas do not exist independently of their material conditions. By shifting from an analysis of material conditions and the social relations that spring from them to one of “culture,” you are placing ideas outside of their context in material reality, and moving to the realm of supernatural thinking. In other words, this is pure idealism and is anti-scientific. Idealism has more in common with fascism than it does with socialism, so I really do think you should be careful. Fascists use the “culture” argument to argue against immigration, in favor of colonialism, etc.
Nope I’m viewing the whole picture as it is, a whole. The claims and movements of a government do not happen separate from the culture and often you look at the culture to understand the real experience of people living under a government. Many places outlawed things that they didn’t or couldn’t actually enforce - homosexuality, drug use, freedom of speech for examples.
You aren’t viewing the whole picture, though. You’re abstracting the Soviet Union from its historical context and measuring it against standards of an entirely different historical era. Further, again, you are placing far too much of an emphasis on culture while treating it as though it exists independent from the society and the social relations compelled by it. This is an idealist argument, not a materialist one.
Here’s a simple exercise: why did women’s rights dramatically expand upon the implementation of socialism?
Honestly for the same reason it did in the west. There was a massive need for economic resources, manpower. And limiting half your workforce because culture was stupid and everyone realized that.
This is what was happening globally at the time as well. Even before the West made laws to support women in workforces, there were plenty of women working far before that too. Because laws aren’t the only thing that matters, culture does.
The economic basis of capitalism also reinforces the nuclear family, as you can treat domestic labor as unpaid labor for recreating the paid labor of the male worker. Socialism brought with it profound cultural changes as well as economic changes that put the Soviets ahead of the west, despite the west being capitalist for longer than Russia was.