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 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?