How come Scandinavian countries are miles ahead of literally all communist countries w.r.t. queer rights (Cuba excluded)?
Simply because progressivism coincided with imperialism, doesn’t mean it’s because of it. Correlation does not equate to causation.
You say queer rights have improved compared to what they had before, but homosexuality is something that remains to this day significantly stigmatized outside of urban centers (Beijing, Shanghai etc which are more accepting)— when it wasn’t stigmatized as much before. Though perhaps that is more owing to Christianity, I’m more privy to Japan’s history than China’s if we’re going beyond the last century.
What’s wrong with comparing them to the west? Is the west a nebulous “evil”? (See above, I don’t believe it’s better there due to imperialism)
How come Scandinavian countries are miles ahead of literally all communist countries w.r.t. queer rights (Cuba excluded)?
I explained this a bit already, but to rephrase and simplify, when your country is under the threat of imperialism, colonialism, settler-colonialism, or neocolonialism, social progress is stunted. Imperialist countries like Scandinavia have had more time benefiting from imperialism, and as such have a form of “Herrenvolk” progressivism. In Scandinavian countries (and imperialist countries in general), social progress itself is allowed as a concession to workers and as a way to justify imperialism, not out of the kindness of the ruling class.
Further, Scandinavian countries are not miles ahead of literally all socialist countries. Queer rights are gradually improving in all socialist countries, which are still under siege but ultimately progressing faster than peer capitalist countries. As the aging populations die off, much of their social conservativism does too, which is why in China for example queer rights have been rapidly improving.
Social progress happens not in a vacuum, simply due to having better and better ideas. Ideas are formed from our material conditions, and alongside economic development comes social progress. The fact that Scandinavian countries have been able to develop earlier due to relying on imperialism is what has allowed their proletariat to struggle for queer rights more effectively, as they aren’t struggling against siege. That’s also why socialist countries have brought positive momentum to queer rights when previously they were more oppressed.
This gradual process of improvement comes from a long struggle towards liberation. Comparing countries with entirely different historical contexts directly is a metaphysical analytical error, which is again an example of why dialectical materialism is so important.
To borrow from Gramsci, who I’ve been reading lately:
To judge the whole philosophical past as madness and folly is not only an anti-historical error, since it contains the anachronistic presumption that in the past they should have thought like today, but it is a truly genuine holdover from metaphysics, since it supposes a dogmatic thought valid at all times and in all countries, by whose standard one should judge all the past.
The method of anti-historicism is nothing but metaphysics. That past philosophical systems have been superseded does not negate the fact that they were historically valid and served a necessary function: their obsolescence should be considered from the point of view of the entire development of history and the real dialectic; that they deserved to perish is neither a moral judgment nor sound thinking issued from an “objective” point of view, but a dialectical-historical judgment. One can compare this with Engels’ presentation of the Hegelian proposition that “all that is rational is real and all that is real is rational,” a proposition which holds true for the past as well.
This doesn’t just apply to past philosophy, but also to past ways we view social rights, gender, sexuality, and more, and this development is not flat and even across all of humanity but often restricted by dialect, language, and level of development.
many of these countries have not been under the attack of imperialism for the better part of a century, if not a century atp.
when has Scandinavia engaged in imperialism?
re: correlation ≠ causation w.r.t. imperialism and progress occuring together
They are quite literally miles ahead. Apart from Cuba— no socialist countries have marriage equality for gay couples, no socialist countries have discrimination protections rights for gay people, legal recognition as the gender opposite to the one assigned at birth is contingent on undergoing surgery. The majority of gay people in China do not feel comfortable to coming out to their parents. Scandinavia outperforms socialist countries on all these accounts.
You are severely downplaying how staggered they are in this regard. The etiology of social backwardness aside, these are still facts.
If imperialism is what you are equating to what leads to social progress, then china should be at its forefront because it has had a fairly imperialistic history itself. So what is the distinguishing factor?
You are severely misreading my point. Imperialism does not lead to social progress, social progress accelerates alongside development and the lack of siege. Imperialist countries got to develop faster due to plundering wealth from the global south.
Incorrect, every single socialist state has been under siege by imperialist countries, either through embargoes like Cuba or through constant trade wars and propaganda, like against the PRC.
Scandinavia is engaging in imperialism now, and has been. Imperialism is an epoch of capitalism, characterized by the domination of finance capital and monopoly. Western countries all play into this system of imperialism.
Already answered earlier, I never made the point that imperialism itself causes social progress, just that development and lack of outside pressures provides a better environment for social struggle.
No, Scandinavian countries are not “miles ahead.” At a legal level, Scandinavian countries are ahead, but discriminatuon is still found. Using China as an example, younger generations are more progressive and open, and since China is a democratic country, it’s more of a conflict between generations, rather than a policy caused by socialism. You’re also ignoring that the USSR, for example, was more progressive in its time than western countries, that the GDR was providing free gender-affirming care, and that Cuba is more progressive than Scandinavian countries. All socialist countries have gradually been improving in queer rights over time, which goes directly against your nonsensical idea that socialism causes LGBTQ oppression.
Imperialism does not lead to social progress. Again, you’re entirely butchering my point. Imperialism provides western countries with more resources and no outside threat, so social struggle was easier. Imperialism itself is not the driving force for queer rights, this is the argument made by imperialists. As for China, it hasnt ever been at the imperialist stage of capitalism, and the last time China was a world power was hundreds of years ago. Queer rights in China went down during the Century of Humiliation, the adoption of socialism presented an incredible expansion in women’s rights and new avenues of social progress.
Overall, two things are clear: you haven’t been checking out any of my links, and you haven’t been paying actual attention to my points, given how much you’ve twisted them, such as the idea that imperialism causes social progress. Nobody made that point, and yet you made it the focus of this comment.
I highly recommend reading the article LGBT Rights and Issues in AES countries. It will give you a far better understanding of the real issues faced in socialist countries, and what direction the struggle is heading in, what’s blocking it, etc, without imperialist narratives and pinkwashing getting in the way.
I want you to grapple with a single question, and answer honestly: what do you believe the best path forward is for the LGBTQIA+ activists in, say, China, right now: rebelling against socialism, or fighting for reforms within socialism, as they already are and are presently progressing?
How come Scandinavian countries are miles ahead of literally all communist countries w.r.t. queer rights (Cuba excluded)?
Simply because progressivism coincided with imperialism, doesn’t mean it’s because of it. Correlation does not equate to causation.
You say queer rights have improved compared to what they had before, but homosexuality is something that remains to this day significantly stigmatized outside of urban centers (Beijing, Shanghai etc which are more accepting)— when it wasn’t stigmatized as much before. Though perhaps that is more owing to Christianity, I’m more privy to Japan’s history than China’s if we’re going beyond the last century.
What’s wrong with comparing them to the west? Is the west a nebulous “evil”? (See above, I don’t believe it’s better there due to imperialism)
I explained this a bit already, but to rephrase and simplify, when your country is under the threat of imperialism, colonialism, settler-colonialism, or neocolonialism, social progress is stunted. Imperialist countries like Scandinavia have had more time benefiting from imperialism, and as such have a form of “Herrenvolk” progressivism. In Scandinavian countries (and imperialist countries in general), social progress itself is allowed as a concession to workers and as a way to justify imperialism, not out of the kindness of the ruling class.
Further, Scandinavian countries are not miles ahead of literally all socialist countries. Queer rights are gradually improving in all socialist countries, which are still under siege but ultimately progressing faster than peer capitalist countries. As the aging populations die off, much of their social conservativism does too, which is why in China for example queer rights have been rapidly improving.
Social progress happens not in a vacuum, simply due to having better and better ideas. Ideas are formed from our material conditions, and alongside economic development comes social progress. The fact that Scandinavian countries have been able to develop earlier due to relying on imperialism is what has allowed their proletariat to struggle for queer rights more effectively, as they aren’t struggling against siege. That’s also why socialist countries have brought positive momentum to queer rights when previously they were more oppressed.
This gradual process of improvement comes from a long struggle towards liberation. Comparing countries with entirely different historical contexts directly is a metaphysical analytical error, which is again an example of why dialectical materialism is so important.
To borrow from Gramsci, who I’ve been reading lately:
This doesn’t just apply to past philosophy, but also to past ways we view social rights, gender, sexuality, and more, and this development is not flat and even across all of humanity but often restricted by dialect, language, and level of development.
many of these countries have not been under the attack of imperialism for the better part of a century, if not a century atp.
when has Scandinavia engaged in imperialism?
re: correlation ≠ causation w.r.t. imperialism and progress occuring together
They are quite literally miles ahead. Apart from Cuba— no socialist countries have marriage equality for gay couples, no socialist countries have discrimination protections rights for gay people, legal recognition as the gender opposite to the one assigned at birth is contingent on undergoing surgery. The majority of gay people in China do not feel comfortable to coming out to their parents. Scandinavia outperforms socialist countries on all these accounts.
You are severely downplaying how staggered they are in this regard. The etiology of social backwardness aside, these are still facts.
You are severely misreading my point. Imperialism does not lead to social progress, social progress accelerates alongside development and the lack of siege. Imperialist countries got to develop faster due to plundering wealth from the global south.
Incorrect, every single socialist state has been under siege by imperialist countries, either through embargoes like Cuba or through constant trade wars and propaganda, like against the PRC.
Scandinavia is engaging in imperialism now, and has been. Imperialism is an epoch of capitalism, characterized by the domination of finance capital and monopoly. Western countries all play into this system of imperialism.
Already answered earlier, I never made the point that imperialism itself causes social progress, just that development and lack of outside pressures provides a better environment for social struggle.
No, Scandinavian countries are not “miles ahead.” At a legal level, Scandinavian countries are ahead, but discriminatuon is still found. Using China as an example, younger generations are more progressive and open, and since China is a democratic country, it’s more of a conflict between generations, rather than a policy caused by socialism. You’re also ignoring that the USSR, for example, was more progressive in its time than western countries, that the GDR was providing free gender-affirming care, and that Cuba is more progressive than Scandinavian countries. All socialist countries have gradually been improving in queer rights over time, which goes directly against your nonsensical idea that socialism causes LGBTQ oppression.
Imperialism does not lead to social progress. Again, you’re entirely butchering my point. Imperialism provides western countries with more resources and no outside threat, so social struggle was easier. Imperialism itself is not the driving force for queer rights, this is the argument made by imperialists. As for China, it hasnt ever been at the imperialist stage of capitalism, and the last time China was a world power was hundreds of years ago. Queer rights in China went down during the Century of Humiliation, the adoption of socialism presented an incredible expansion in women’s rights and new avenues of social progress.
Overall, two things are clear: you haven’t been checking out any of my links, and you haven’t been paying actual attention to my points, given how much you’ve twisted them, such as the idea that imperialism causes social progress. Nobody made that point, and yet you made it the focus of this comment.
I highly recommend reading the article LGBT Rights and Issues in AES countries. It will give you a far better understanding of the real issues faced in socialist countries, and what direction the struggle is heading in, what’s blocking it, etc, without imperialist narratives and pinkwashing getting in the way.
I want you to grapple with a single question, and answer honestly: what do you believe the best path forward is for the LGBTQIA+ activists in, say, China, right now: rebelling against socialism, or fighting for reforms within socialism, as they already are and are presently progressing?
You have a not in the first sentence, I think shouldn’t be there.
Thanks! I goofed that one up, sorry!