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.
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.
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.