Communism has to emerge out of pre-existing social conditions. There is no point fantasising about a revolution that’s going to abolish families, for example.
Western societies are not necessarily all socially liberal, but that is the predominant culture. For centuries now, people have become progressively more tolerant. A majority of the non-boomer population at least have a strong “live and let live” attitude towards religion, drug use, sexual preference, immigration, sex work, etc. And Boomers are more tolerant than their parents generation too.
Some Western communists seem to have a disturbing enthusiasm for enforcing what they see as a good or moral lifestyle on other people. Ignoring any theoretical pragmatic necessities, the aim of a communist society is to guarantee freedom from economic exploitation, rather than impose additional moralities. And anyway, it seems an obvious strategic failure to go against the current of the time, and associate communism with social conservatism. Most social conservatives are going to be inherently anti-communist because communism is a poor vehicle for realising the kind of society they want.
Obviously personal freedoms are a secondary concern to ending exploitation and imperialism. However, it may not seem that way to liberals. Associating communism with social conservatism makes it anathema to the liberal portion of society and no more attractive to the conservative side. It is a complete own goal.
ok i’ll bite and here’s my take: i think this weird undercurrent of “socially conservative communism” is mostly coming from the so-called “MAGA communists” and “patriotic socialists” who think that communism can only be for strong manlymen workers that spend all day sweating at the smoke and sparks factory and need to appeal to them. they keep pushing this to separate their reactionary “communism” from standard social progressivism to contrast against your average left liberal and show the MAGA types that “SEE, WE AREN"T LIKE THOSE WOKES”.
so in my opinion this is mostly an artificial construct being pushed by some weirdos with outsized influence because they are being funded by the coffers of Larouchites, or as a way to disrupt the increasing radicalization of the younger generations who are finding communism and socialism increasingly appealing (at least as polls seem to suggest). it’s a tactic to make them associate communism with social conservatism and drive them back to the center, either being done deliberately or as a byproduct of a different agenda.
Would you mind pointing me toward someone prominent who’s making a cogent argument for linking social conservatism along with communism (or socialism)?
To be clear, this is me admitting that I hang out in a comfy echo chamber, not me trying to discredit your post
Within the West there aren’t any serious attempts to link social conservatism to communism that I’m aware of, outside of online grifts like “maga-communism”, although the use of the term ‘tankie’ has been remarkably successful in linking serious communists to these grifters. Outside the West there are conservative communist movements though, the Russian National Bolsheviks for example.
But in a more general sense; there are, for example, Maoists who are strongly opposed to drug use, Trotskyists opposed to trans rights, etc., - even Marxists-Leninists turning up to rallies with placards of Stalin is arguably giving out the wrong image. We also have the historical legacy of social conservatism in many AES states, and perhaps we need to more actively combat that. I know I’ve talked to sex workers before who have the impression that communists are opposed to them. In any case it seems like liberalism is a kind of back door through which we could be gaining support in the West, instilling the idea that we are the ones who will give you a society that is truly humanist and free. It would be much easier to attract converts in this way than, say, deprogramming poor working class westerners into understanding that they have a relative affluence stemming from third world exploitation.While there are communists who are anti sex work because of ‘morality,’ I think many just conclude that because sex work has historically been reserved for the most desperate and exploited women, a proper communist society would have minimal or no sex work because they have other preferable choices
As for the AES that are socially conservative, that’s just how they’ve been. Look at what happened in Afghanistan when communists tried to become more progressive when no one else wanted it (however, the US played a major role in muddying the waters by colluding with oligarchs to spread the message that communism hates Islam).
However, it’s not permanent. Look at Cuba. Once very homophobic, but Castro not only apologized and took responsibility, but the country started to take action to guarantee more freedoms for LGBT people. The president was pro LGBT long before he was relevant and LGBT citizens are officially included in the constitution. And the NPA in the Philippines officially supports LGBT people. It’s a matter of having good people in power and limiting the reactionary influences that once led your society. I can’t really say how you do this. Either work very hard in many areas to the point where reactionary constituents overlook your progressive stances as long as you keep your other promises, or be endorsed by others more influential.
“Western leftists” just have a lot of free time and want to play philosopher while global south movements and countries are finding new paths.
maoists who oppose drug use
I hate to tell you this, but many people in the global south oppose drugs. It doesn’t make it right, but you need to understand where they come from. These societies don’t get to enjoy a casual coke fueled clubbing session every week. They are beaten, enslaved, decapitated, dismembered, and raped on the streets for cheap drugs in the states. It is natural to become hateful of the immediate source of your misery. The Zapatistas prohibit drugs because they must survive in between the cartels and the governments that collude with the cartels. AMLO can legalize fentanyl tomorrow but I don’t think he wants Mexico to officially become the fentanyl capital. Being pro drug and pro legalization are different things in my opinion.
You can be pro legalization because it’s pragmatic and reduce crime and addiction, but you can also still look down on the drugs and users themselves. It’s not black and white. People in the global south don’t need lectures on becoming “pro drug”; westerners also suffer and do drugs and see the suffering, but the governments and military aren’t systemically colluding with Bloods and Crips to distribute crack (unless you’re the CIA). In drug making countries, there’s no one to turn to and many become apathetic because they don’t believe anything will ever change.
I agree with most of your points and in regards to drug use, I did mean that we should be pro legalisation rather than pro drugs as such. Cartel violence is a product of prohibition, the DEA are known to co-operate with cartels and US intelligence clearly have some significant degree of involvement in the drug trade. Legalisation wouldn’t mean freely distributing fentanyl, it would just mean supplying addicts with a restricted daily amount of their chosen drug and providing rehabilitation. Where it’s been done the evidence shows that it works, and within the West at least there’s no need to fear such a policy would be getting ahead of the people.
There is certainly room to criticise AES states on social policy. Vietnam still criminalises prostitution, for example, despite sex work being extremely common, and thereby denies sex workers the protections legality would give them. Likewise the argument is often made that China’s drug policies should be excused because of the Opium wars, when at its worst China still had a lower percentage of opiate addicts than many Western countries do today.
Asian countries have a dire problem with sexpats and sex tourists exploiting women. I agree that sex workers deserve more protection, and perhaps legalization is one path, but I dont think that they should cater to rich westerners who want to abuse women in poorer countries
I don’t think sex tourism is necessarily the major component, at least not always. Certainly not in Vietnam where every town, most of which Westerners never go to, have brothels. There is also a big trade in sex trafficking in China for example, where poor Vietnamese women (usually children) will be sold to rich Chinese men. Western sex tourism is a relatively small aspect of the wider problem.
I guess my basic assumption in regard to sex work and drug use is that they are going to happen regardless of attempts to prohibit them, there is plenty of evidence for that, and so they need to be controlled and afforded the best protections possible, which is only possible through legalisation. It’s about harm minimisation rather than perfection.
It really just sounds like what you’re saying is people who live in areas with socially conservative values have socially conservative values
For arguments sake, let’s say Marxist theory can be neutral in its implications for these kinds of social questions. The more we can all be on the same page as to how we answer them, the more effective we will be. I’m saying that even if a Western communist is socially conservative in their personal views, it makes strategic sense for them, and all of us, to endorse and pursue a socially liberal communism. Given these questions are secondary to our primary aims anyway, it shouldn’t be difficult to make the compromise.
I’m not really sure who you’re arguing against here
Tailism, you know, when some small socialist or communist group things, “Hey, if we pal around with the racists, homophobes, transphobes, biggots a.k.a fascists (which will wind up with those groups thrown under the bus) we’ll have a large enough section of the population to achieve Socialism or Communism.” Failing to realize that all that would happen is that their movement would either be absorbed into the larger fascist movement or as soon as they finished killing off the blacks/browns, LGBTQIA+, actual communists and socialists, their own people would be cut out and destroyed with as much compassion as a doctor deals with a cancerous tumor.
