Do you think Russia would have become less terrible with LGBT and woman's rights if the Soviet Union was still a thing?
Do you think Russia would have become less terrible with LGBT and woman's rights if the Soviet Union was still a thing?
Because capitalist Russia is pretty shit. The only thing it's good for is opposing the US hegemony, but even then it's still pretty cringe with it's capitalist oligarchy.
Compare modern day Russia with shit like the Soviets sending the first women to space. Seems like they were pretty progressive for the time compared to now?
How the mighty have fallen. You hate to see it.
You're viewing a single thread.
Very hard to say, because the conditions necessary for economic collapse were the same conditions that incentived white chauvinism and nationalism.
Should be noted how the Reagan Era gave us a fresh wave of revanchist race and sex attitudes right alongside our own downturn. And the LGBT civil rights boom of the 90s paralleled the Clinton Era boom that the Soviets never got to enjoy. The UK economic downtown happening right now and holy shit are they going through some bigoted shit.
I guess a good litmus test for this theory is to observe how Eastern block states - China and India, particularly, but Russia as well going into the 2030s - come around during their own regional boom.
Yeah, I’ve always seen the 90s neoliberal harvest era (harvest of the collapsed USSR industries that were yet to be financialized) and the easy credit (financial deregulation) fueling the economic boom as temporary. Now that the economic boom has run its course, we are also starting to see a regression in LGBT and other civil rights in Western countries as well.
I don't understand the link here between economic prosperity and attitudes toward LGBT people, bigotry, etc. Is the idea that as economic conditions get worse people look for scapegoats?
The problem that I have with social progress under neoliberal capitalism is that it is too closely tied to capital, which means that it is built on shaky foundations to begin with.
After the collapse of the USSR, neoliberal capitalism was able to gain access to the free market pretty much on the entire globe, but what happens when you have secured the global market while still needing to sustain an indefinite growth?
The 1990s also saw the digitalization of society and rise of internet, opening the door to a “big data” era where consumer information such as their preferences and habits can be conveniently gathered and sold among corporations. This allowed corporations to target demographics in very specific manners, such that instead of a generic product that appeals to only cis white male, for example, as was the case in the previous eras, now capital can also boost their sales numbers by targeting not only marginalized groups, but sub-groups (e.g. a sub-culture) within the same demographics.
As the market for the traditionally defined demographics became exhausted themselves, how do you keep the profits flowing? This is where the emancipatory project of gender, sexual orientation and sub-culture identification came to align with the interests of neoliberal capitalism. Yes, if we can create an infinite number of sub-demographics, you can in principle perform a very personalized, targeted sales tailored to the taste and preference of a very specific individual.
However, as the Western credit-fueled economy has started to run its course, with a deep recession on the horizon, this model of growth is no longer viable. So, as the LGBT groups no longer serve their purpose as consumers for capital, it is ready abandon whatever progress that had been made under neoliberalism.
A similar parallel can be seen with Western social democracy under the Fordist-Keynesian model during the post-war era (1945-1970s). As Europe was devastated after WWII, the capitalists saw a temporary truce with the working class to rebuild the war-torn Europe. Also acting as a bulwark against the Soviet communism, the working class living under the Western social democratic states was able to benefit from a partial power-sharing with capital and enjoyed an exponential rise in living standards. However, as the contradictions under the Keynesian model also became intensified and its failures inevitable, capital was ready to abandon the high wage, high living standards model for the working class, and these workers who had enjoyed a few decades of progress in living standards became abandoned in a process that began in the 1970s, as neoliberalism came to the forefront and began transitioning into rentier/financial capitalism.
Yes, worsening conditions mean people need scapegoats. The people in charge of the political machine may not even necessarily be scapegoating (though they often are). Sometimes there’s just a cultural search for explanations and the reactionary reasons happen to win out by the time they reach the ears of someone who can do something about it. Also, improving conditions make it easier for activists to operate. More resources, more hope, more free time, less death. It’s not a 1-to-1 link and there are other factors, but there’s a connection. You can also look at things like unequal distribution of prosperity. The success of the black suffrage movement in the US followed a boom where white Americans came into tremendous wealth which wasn’t shared among the black population. And where black communities were able to get some for themselves and develop their own prosperity, towns were bulldozed, flooded, or otherwise destroyed. And of course we already know about things like red lining. Prosperity plays a major part in that story.