I gave you the source, and Iām always interested in a good discussion. I just feel that this conversation has generally been a bit imbalanced, thatās all. It seems like youāre coming from this with a permanent skepticism that even light googling can help solve.
That is fair. I donāt have sources ready on me to provide on these topics, Iād have to look for them first. I guess when Iām not referring to sources/facts etc I am usually coming from less of a position of ādemonstrating why X is trueā and more of āthis is what I know and Iām just trying to pull what information you haveā, if that makes sense.
Regarding the point on queer rights I wanted to go over:
I listed some significant progress for queer rights earlier but it seems like you just glossed over them as being ājust some legal benefitsā, because discrimination still exists?
Iād like to ask you:
Is marriage equality insignificant to you?
Is protection against discrimination in work and housing insignificant to you?
Are hate crime protections insignificant to you?
Is the right to adopt insignificant?
Are these things not significant?
I view them as life-changing protections. Please donāt shrug them off as if they are nothing. These are massive, massive improvements in quality of life, and they deserve to be acknowledged as such.
I cannot see you as being truly concerned for queer populations if these things just evoke a āmeh, whateverā from you.
The phenomenon that younger generations are more progressive is more-or-less universally applicable, it isnt unique to China. While it is true that discrimination sadly occurs everywhere, it is significantly lower in Scandinavia. Compare any of those countries on Equaldex.com to China and you can see an in-depth breakdown of just how far ahead they are.
Is significantly less discrimination a good thing to you? Or does it not matter because itās not completely gone yet, and having more discrimination is thus preferable?
Furthermore, you said that socialist countries do better in queer rights than peer capitalist countries, when this is demonstrably false. Compare Thailand and Taiwan to China. Both perform better in terms of queer rights than China, but neither are socialist.
Incidentally I have actually read the prolewikiās entry on queer rights in socialist countries. I have read everything they cover on queer issues. There is a glaringly unbalanced coverage of queer issues, with everything being clearly cherry-picked. Not a single one of the countriesā flaws or setbacks are mentioned, none of the lacking protections or rights are mentioned. It came off as very dishonest to me and was a big part of my reason to not engage with that wiki again. I have already seen these countries through a reliable source that documents queer rights that I prefer to use (equaldex).
It strikes me as strange that any real negative or lack in China/socialist countries will always be downplayed and glossed over at best and simply not covered at all at worst. I wonder if this is just a Marxist-Leninist tendency or if it is shared by all Communists.
I will grant that free GAC in the past was amazing, and Cuba. Thereās nothing really to say wrt to queer rights in Cuba as itās already ideal in that regard, but Cuba is very much the exception in currently socialist countries (not a single of the other countries today are anything like it in that regard).
I am not āpinkwashedā, I routinely criticize the west and imperialism myself. I criticize everything.
Though itās weird, isnāt pinkwashing basically a subtype of brainwashing? I thought you didnāt believe in ābrainwashingā, in favour of moral licensing, according to your guide.
For clarity, Iām pansexual myself. I view improvements in the queer struggle absolutely positively. The problems I took with your positions were as follows:
You overstated the gap between western countries and existing socialist states, understating problems with western countries and overstating problems with socialist countries
You tried to tie socialism to an erasure of queer rights, despite the fact that socialist countries have all gradually been improving in queer rights over time, especially compared to what was in place previously
I guess when Iām not referring to sources/facts etc I am usually coming from less of a position of ādemonstrating why X is trueā and more of āthis is what I know and Iām just trying to pull what information you haveā, if that makes sense.
The problem here is that youāre treating me not as a discussion partner, but as a search engine. It doesnāt come across as you trying to convince me, or come to a better understanding together through dialogue, it feels one-sided and imbalanced. I feel like this is why some topics end up going nowhere despite several comments passing by.
I view them as life-changing protections. Please donāt shrug them off as if they are nothing. These are massive, massive improvements in quality of life, and they deserve to be acknowledged as such.
I never brushed them off as though they were nothing, I highlighted that they arenāt as solid as you claim, and are far more recent. China is 1-2 decades behind the west when it comes to LGBTQIA+ rights, not several centuries or anything, yet you frame it as though China is getting worse over time and the west is getting better while the opposite is true.
Is significantly less discrimination a good thing to you? Or does it not matter because itās not completely gone yet, and having more discrimination is thus preferable?
This is the kind of frankly bad-faith bullshit youāve been stating that makes it abundantly clear from my perspective that you donāt seem to care at all about what I say, but instead are fishing for āgotchas.ā Iāll bold this so itās clear: Less discrimination is better, obviously. Overstating the gap between countries when it comes to social rights in order to push a narrative that this gap is due to failings on the part of the country lagging behind is illogical and ignores the reality of how social change comes to be, and undermines the ongoing efforts of queer activists in socialist countries.
In other words, youāre throwing queer advocates under the bus to give yourself an excuse to discredit their real achievements, both up until now and in the near future.
Furthermore, you said that socialist countries do better in queer rights than peer capitalist countries, when this is demonstrably false. Compare Thailand and Taiwan to China. Both perform better in terms of queer rights than China, but neither are socialist.
Cherry picking. Throughout the Soviet Unionās existence, it was ahead of the west when it comes to queer rights. Cuba is far ahead of their peers, and even far ahead of the west. China is ahead of their peers on average.
Incidentally I have actually read the prolewikiās entry on queer rights in socialist countries. I have read everything they cover on queer issues. There is a glaringly unbalanced coverage of queer issues, with everything being clearly cherry-picked. Not a single one of the countriesā flaws or setbacks are mentioned, none of the lacking protections or rights are mentioned. It came off as very dishonest to me and was a big part of my reason to not engage with that wiki again. I have already seen these countries through a reliable source that documents queer rights that I prefer to use (equaldex).
What youāre doing is cherry picking, though. Prolewiki frames social progress as a process, not as a snapshot. In doing so, itās documenting the progressive movements in socialist countries and what struggles they face, it doesnāt try to document a list of whatās presently there because history is not a set of disconnected snapshots but a process. Both are necessary, having a good view of existing conditions while analyzing trends, and Equaldex lacks that historical background analysis and analysis of trends. This is what you deliberately are choosing to ignore, and what I have pointed out this entire time.
It strikes me as strange that any real negative or lack in China/socialist countries will always be downplayed and glossed over at best and simply not covered at all at worst. I wonder if this is just a Marxist-Leninist tendency or if it is shared by all Communists.
The negatives are not downplayed or glossed-over, what youāre missing is contextual analysis and analysis of historical progression, which Prolewiki highlights. This is true of all communists, dialectical materialism overcame vulgar materialism and idealism and as such represents the basis of how we understand the world. Not as disconnected, isolated snapshots, but as ever-connected trends and processes.
I will grant that free GAC in the past was amazing, and Cuba. Thereās nothing really to say wrt to queer rights in Cuba as itās already ideal in that regard, but Cuba is very much the exception in currently socialist countries (not a single of the other countries today are anything like it in that regard).
Cuba is not an exception, and queer rights in Cuba are not perfect. In 100 years, we will look at Cuban queer rights presently as extremely backward and lacking. What Cuba is is progressive as it exists compared to itself in the past, and as compared to western countries which are seeing backslides. China is catching up to Cuba, and is more progressive socially than it was in the past. If trends continue, it will overtake the west in this respect sometime this century, probably closer to now than the turn of the century (and not just catch up to where the west is today, but surpass where the west will be in the future).
Youāre looking at the values you have today as though these were correct ideas all along, and we had to wait until right this moment to discover them. This is false. In 100 years, both of our views will likely be seen as progressive for our time and conditions, but reactionary as compared to standards of the future. This doesnāt happen evenly across a global standard, but also has national variance as well as development proceeds at different rates, allowing for greater or lesser pressure from queer liberation struggles.
I am not āpinkwashedā, I routinely criticize the west and imperialism myself. I criticize everything.
You were downplaying Scandinavian imperialism just a few comments ago, and you said Cuba is āperfectā with regards to queer rights. Cuba is not perfect, though itās absolutely a great standard for contemporary conditions. Perfection is far away and perhaps impossible, whatās important is that we continue to progress, not regress.
Though itās weird, isnāt pinkwashing basically a subtype of brainwashing? I thought you didnāt believe in ābrainwashingā, in favour of moral licensing, according to your guide.
Pinkwashing isnāt brainwashing, itās a form of licensing. Ie, Zionists telling queer people that itās hypocritical to support Hamas and Palestinian liberation over Israel due to Israelās ābetter queer rightsā (which is honestly up for debate given how they treat queer Palestinians, ie with genocide).
I was certainly harsh this comment, but I really need you to understand the problem with how you view social progress as a snapshot and not as an ongoing process. If you want to read more about queer activism as it relates to anti-imperialism and socialism, read Lavender & Red by Leslie Feinberg.
I want to flip this conversation around. What is the underlying reason why queer rights are where they are in the west, and why are they where they are in socialist countries right this second? What direction is social progress moving in in both sets, positive or negative?
You overstated the gap between western countries and existing socialist states
I stated the legal protections that exist in the west that do not exist in existing socialist states (sans Cuba). This is not an overstatement, this is fact.
I am not trying to convince you of anything at the moment, just exchanging information. I canāt provide sources for the prior topics we were discussing as that is something Iād have to research prior. For those topics, I canāt do better atm, so if it is unsatisfactory for you, you can always exit. But I donāt think this applies when it comes to queer topics, at least not as much.
I never brushed them off as though they were nothing, I highlighted that they arenāt as solid as you claim
I claimed they have certain legal protections. Marriage equality, housing/employee protection, adoption. This is fact, it is not something merely claimed by me.
you frame it as though China is getting worse over time and the west is getting better while the opposite is true.
I didnāt say this. My point was there are factually better laws extant in the west today that donāt exist in modern-day socialist states besides Cuba.
This is the kind of frankly bad-faith bullshit youāve been stating that makes it abundantly clear from my perspective that you donāt seem to care at all about what I say, but instead are fishing for āgotchas.ā Iāll bold this so itās clear: Less discrimination is better, obviously. Overstating the gap between countries when it comes to social rights in order to push a narrative that this gap is due to failings on the part of the country lagging behind is illogical and ignores the reality of how social change comes to be, and undermines the ongoing efforts of queer activists in socialist countries.
The legal protections I mentioned, again, are all factually true. Allow me to rephrase the part where I said it was āāmiles aheadāā. There are much better laws in place for queer people in the west than the socialist countries that exist today, asides from Cuba.
However, I will say that I am inclined to believe that the parity is a failure on part of the country. Whose else is it, do we just not hold countries accountable, now? Or is everything just always explained as being the Westās fault? That seems illogical to me.
Prolewiki frames social progress as a process, not as a snapshot. In doing so, itās documenting the progressive movements in socialist countries and what struggles they face, it doesnāt try to document a list of whatās presently there because history is not a set of disconnected snapshots but a process.
Does a framing of social progress as a process mean that you overlook flaws and negatives and whatās missing?
How can you even begin to honestly document the struggles faced when you havenāt even mentioned the fact that they donāt have some of the most significant rights.
Both are necessary, having a good view of existing conditions while analyzing trends, and Equaldex lacks that historical background analysis and analysis of trends. This is what you deliberately are choosing to ignore, and what I have pointed out this entire time.
Then why can only one be seen to the total omission of the other? You criticize Equaldex for lacking one but not Prolewiki for lacking the other.
Furthermore, Prolewiki does NOT have a good view of existing conditions. I do not take issue with trend analysis. Go for it! I take issue with not calling a spade a spade and ignoring what is in the here and now altogether. That is not something that will be read as logical to me.
Just because itās a process, in our current account of things, we are going to skip over whatās missing and painful right now? How can you even work towards whatās missing if you donāt even mention āāI donāt have Xāā?
This is as absurd to me as hearing someone trying to document how economic inequality has changed over time without even bothering to mention the facts of what exactly is wrong right now. Lets not even mention the problem of housing, the wage gap by race and gender, unemployment, etc, because itās a process! Itās not a snapshot!
To be clear: this is not intended to be inflammatory, but I am trying to convey why this kind of view just makes no sense to me.
Benefits: Benefits
Drawbacks: āProcessā
This is clearly cherry-picking and unbalanced and if you work like that it doesnāt matter how abysmal a country could be in theory because the drawbacks will always be reframed as a process while you only really account for the benefits, resulting in a distorted picture and account of the country.
Also, another counterpoint would be, how come you donāt call the problems in the west āa processā too, then? The drawbacks are just process when looking at socialism, but the west? You donāt seem to have an issue with calling their drawbacks for what they are, drawbacks, without calling it āprocessā there. Seems to be inconsistent to me.
The negatives are not downplayed or glossed-over
And yet you have never stopped to acknowledge them or give them their due weight. You write one or two sentences, at the most, on how China is not perfect in the most general and nebulous of terms, but that is all one gets, before focusing the entirety of your responses on why China is doing well.
How about you give me an equally lengthy answer on the areas where China is performing poorly, and not being up to the mark where it should, flaws in the government, problems faced by people living there today, things like that? Can you actually do that?
Cuba is not an exception
Cuba is absolutely the exception in currently existing socialist countries, this is fact. Name one other socialist country today that has legalized gay marriageā or any of the other legal protections I mentioned earlier. There isnāt one.
queer rights in Cuba are not perfect.
I didnāt say it was āperfectā. I said it was ideal and there wasnt anything to say about it to critique it, within the context of our conversation (i.e. a comparison between queer rights under socialist and non-socialist countries). Compared to the non-socialist countries with progressive laws, Cuba isnāt doing noticeably worse in this regard to warrant discussion.
You were downplaying Scandinavian imperialism just a few comments ago, and you said Cuba is āperfectā with regards to queer rights.
Wasnāt downplaying, I asked, because Iād never heard of Scandinavian imperialism before; and ceded the point (for the purposes of the discussion) when given evidence. As for Cuba, didnāt call it perfect, that is your wording, not mine.
On the why behind queer rights in the west:
Iāll preface by saying this is speculative and Iāve never thought about the why much before, believing most countries just remain the way they are for the most part.
I think that secularism and other thought emerging from the enlightenment era played a role in forming the bedrock where queer rights would be discussed more openly.
In the US specifically, in the 70ās, the stonewall riots and queer lobbying lead to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder.
I think that the shift of focus in favour of individualism replacing traditional family values (even if far from completely, I am aware MAGAts and conservative and/or christians make up a significant portion of the US) allows more space for gay liberation. Though to be clear I am not saying the US is ideal for gay people, it is just an example. West Europe is less conservative and affirming (likely Scandinavia being the best in this regard).
Collectivist cultures are inherently less likely to be able to give room to such things coming about because they want everyone to conform to the same norm, which is always going to be heterosexuality (if not within a traditional marriage). Gay people donāt come out to their parents in Asia (mostly collectivist cultures) because of the emphasis on āfurthering the parentsā bloodlineā (amongst beliefs that it is unnatural and all sorts of other bigotry, of course).
It has been my idea that weāve had a lot of activists over the last century (possibly prior as well) in the west. Perhaps due to language barriers I canāt say I have personally heard enough to say the same about the east, though I have seen japanese activists pushing for this for a while the last year or so.
āSocial progressā is too broad a term for me to be able to assess just like that, but specifically in the context of queer rights specifically I am more or less content with where theyāre at in West Europe; they are declining sharply in the US under Trump, though.
I donāt personally see it improving in socialist countries in a significant way any time soon.
Though I wouldnāt be surprised if it happened before the turn of the century (itād be about goddamn time), I just wouldnāt personally care since itās not happening in my lifetime. I canāt envision myself living there because itās not happening in time. If itād happen sooner, I could, but thatās just not realistic.
The legal protections I mentioned, again, are all factually true. Allow me to rephrase the part where I said it was āāmiles aheadāā. There are much better laws in place for queer people in the west than the socialist countries that exist today, asides from Cuba.
However, I will say that I am inclined to believe that the parity is a failure on part of the country. Whose else is it, do we just not hold countries accountable, now? Or is everything just always explained as being the Westās fault? That seems illogical to me.
We can hold countries accountable without treating it illogically, like a race. Social progress isnāt a race, itās something that is built over time, and largely depends on changing the views of a great number of people at a time, not just formal, legal changes.
Does a framing of social progress as a process mean that you overlook flaws and negatives and whatās missing?
How can you even begin to honestly document the struggles faced when you havenāt even mentioned the fact that they donāt have some of the most significant rights.
Nope, framing social progress as a process, rather than something static, means looking at the fact that countries that are ahead presently are behind what will be considered acceptable in the future, and countries that are behind now are often ahead of where they were in the past. There is nothing special about this present moment, so we need to look at the positive, progressive movements, which factually exist and are making changes in socialist countries.
This is clearly cherry-picking and unbalanced and if you work like that it doesnāt matter how abysmal a country could be in theory because the drawbacks will always be reframed as a process while you only really account for the benefits, resulting in a distorted picture and account of the country.
Also, another counterpoint would be, how come you donāt call the problems in the west āa processā too, then? The drawbacks are just process when looking at socialism, but the west? You donāt seem to have an issue with calling their drawbacks for what they are, drawbacks, without calling it āprocessā there. Seems to be inconsistent to me.
This is how I know you arenāt really reading what I say. I have said everything is a process. Understanding that nothing is static doesnāt mean everything bad doesnāt matter or that nothing good matters. You framed existing social progress in, say, China as bad when it is better than it was in the past and is continuing to get better and better. Without the knowledge of the latter, you make it seem as though itās a systemic problem and not something actively being worked on.
The fact that you think I donāt see social progress/regress in the west as a process is just proof that you arenāt reading what Iām saying, because Iāve said very clearly that everything is a process, repeatedly.
How about you give me an equally lengthy answer on the areas where China is performing poorly, and not being up to the mark where it should, flaws in the government, problems faced by people living there today, things like that? Can you actually do that?
Because there would be no point in this current conversation? Why should an overview of Chinaās negatives be equal to a short overview of their positives? China has problems, but unlike the west the vast majority of them are being actively worked on and improving.
Cuba is absolutely the exception in currently existing socialist countries, this is fact. Name one other socialist country today that has legalized gay marriageā or any of the other legal protections I mentioned earlier. There isnāt one.
Cuba is faster than other socialist countries. It is not an exception, it just arrived there faster, and is continuing to progress. That isnāt an exception when the broader trend is the same.
Either way, onto the questions! This is the only part of the convo where I think there will be any progress.
On the why behind queer rights in the west: Iāll preface by saying this is speculative and Iāve never thought about the why much before, believing most countries just remain the way they are for the most part.
This is why I keep stressing that nothing is static, and that everything is moving through time, as a process. Development happens from quantitative buildups turning into qualitative leaps. Even countries that appear to be doing the same thing for a long period of time are undergoing constant buildup to result in change.
I think that secularism and other thought emerging from the enlightenment era played a role in forming the bedrock where queer rights would be discussed more openly.
And why did those ideas come to be? What material conditions were present that allowed some ideas to propogate and others to be ignored?
In the US specifically, in the 70ās, the stonewall riots and queer lobbying lead to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder.
Sure. Why didnāt this happen in the 1870s, or 1770s? Gay people existed back then, what made it possible after the Stonewall riots?
I think that the shift of focus in favour of individualism replacing traditional family values (even if far from completely, I am aware MAGAts and conservative and/or christians make up a significant portion of the US) allows more space for gay liberation. Though to be clear I am not saying the US is ideal for gay people, it is just an example. West Europe is less conservative and affirming (likely Scandinavia being the best in this regard).
Why is there a shift towards individualism?
Collectivist cultures are inherently less likely to be able to give room to such things coming about because they want everyone to conform to the same norm, which is always going to be heterosexuality (if not within a traditional marriage). Gay people donāt come out to their parents in Asia (mostly collectivist cultures) because of the emphasis on āfurthering the parentsā bloodlineā (amongst beliefs that it is unnatural and all sorts of other bigotry, of course).
This is just vibes. Plenty of ācollectivist culturesā do have queer rights comparable to the west. It sounds like youāre focusing extremely hard on ideas, without at all looking at the base, the mode of production and distribution, economic conditions, and how that develops and changes. Westerners also care about furthering bloodlines.
It has been my idea that weāve had a lot of activists over the last century (possibly prior as well) in the west. Perhaps due to language barriers I canāt say I have personally heard enough to say the same about the east, though I have seen japanese activists pushing for this for a while the last year or so.
āSocial progressā is too broad a term for me to be able to assess just like that, but specifically in the context of queer rights specifically I am more or less content with where theyāre at in West Europe; they are declining sharply in the US under Trump, though.
Sure, is western Europe immune to this backslide? Parties like the AFD are rising in popularity and fascism is sweeping Europe as well, seems to me like they may be in danger too.
I donāt personally see it improving in socialist countries in a significant way any time soon.
Why in the world not? You havenāt given any analysis for why things are the way they are, you mostly just recounted historical events while admitting ignorance to the status of struggle in socialist countries. This is why this entire time I have been trying to get you to think about how social progress actually works at a human level, how it spreads and where it comes from.
Though I wouldnāt be surprised if it happened before the turn of the century (itād be about goddamn time), I just wouldnāt personally care since itās not happening in my lifetime. I canāt envision myself living there because itās not happening in time. If itād happen sooner, I could, but thatās just not realistic.
Again, why is it not realistic? It seems that within our lifetimes China is likely going to surpass the west when it comes to social progress. You have to learn how and why progress happens to begin with to extrapolate how it changes in the future.
In short, my criticism with your thought process is that it is metaphysical and idealist, rather than dialectical and materialist. Metaphysical because you view things in a vacuum and as static categories, rather than ever-evolving processes, and idealist because you view the world on the basis of ideas being prior to material conditions, and not material conditions being prior. This circles back to me critique of anarchism in the first place, which you assured me did not violate historical materialism, but your thought process thus far has absolutely been metaphysical and idealist.
I had to split my comment in two because it became too large for Lemmy to send in one go.
Continuing:
Sure. Why didnāt this happen in the 1870s, or 1770s? Gay people existed back then, what made it possible after the Stonewall riots?
In the 1700ās or 1800ās, there were other human rights issues prevalent that affected more people. Black people were still enslaved and women didnāt have the right to vote (and work, I think). I suppose secularization hadnāt deepened as much yet, andā¦ the generation of people growing up closely under church were still around.
From what I know the social movement took a sharp turn upwards in favour of gay rights after the stonewall riots, but I donāt know the specifics. As for the lobbying, it is said that they obstructed APA meetings until their demands were met. I donāt know if that is true.
Why is there a shift towards individualism?
I think that individualism is linked with secularization (because it breaks down church conceptions of ideas such as making and maintaining family a primary commitment, perhaps especially for women), which itself is linked with education. We have seen growing literacy rates for a while now.
Individualism is also said to be a by-product of capitalism, though I donāt personally know about how that works.
This is just vibes. Plenty of ācollectivist culturesā do have queer rights comparable to the west.
Then you should have no problem naming them for me.
Westerners also care about furthering bloodlines.
Westerners donāt care about furthering their bloodlines anywhere near on the same scale as Asians on average. Youāre right in that this is vibes (I donāt have literal stats on me), but this is not really something that is conspiratorial or contested.
It sounds like youāre focusing extremely hard on ideas, without at all looking at the base, the mode of production and distribution, economic conditions, and how that develops and changes.
Because I dont really feel like the economic mode of production necessarily leads to a change in social attitudes, Iām still inclined to think many/most countries remain more or less the same as they are (I know you consider them to not be static). They may walk around with iphones and cars today when they didnāt the last century but they still carry the same conservative attitudes they did last century.
I will bring the example of the Arab, African, or Asian Muslim world again here (I am aware that not the entirety of these diasporas are Muslim, I am specifically referring to the parts that are); I donāt see these countries becoming gay affirming even if the economic mode of production over there changed. Hell, Iād go as far as to say that even China would be much more likely to than them.
Of course, as explained earlier, I still see that as being a very distant thing for China, for similar reasons, but the significant distinction in my opinion is that there isnāt really a stronghold of religion on the Chinese population in the same way that Islam is. Islam is overwhelmingly homophobic, and while there are traditions in Buddhism (and perhaps Confucianism and Taoism, Iām not 100% on Chinese demographics) that are homophobic, itās nowhere near the same (i.e. Islamic scripture commands the stoning of gay men).
Why have there been a lot of activists in the west? Why have you not been paying attention to activists in, say, China?
I mean Iāve outlined the reasons I could think of already for the westā rising levels of education (and higher education), secularism, individualism, urbanization, the steam engine. Though these apply to China too (apart from individualismā Iām not sure about literacy and higher education though).
I never had an interest in China. I only started discussing it at all this year when I started looking into communism a while back. But apart from that I already said it may be due to the language barrier, and well, queer activism in china has never come up anywhere asides from our conversations (in my life).
Jin XingĀ (Chinese:Ā éę;Ā pinyin:Ā JÄ«n XÄ«ng;Ā Korean:Ā ź¹ģ±; born 13 August 1967) is a ChineseĀ dancerĀ and TV personality. The most prominent openly transgender public figure in China,[1]Ā Jin is best known as a talent show judge and the host ofĀ The Jin Xing Show, though her visibility has been significantly curtailed by the Chinese government since 2021.[2]
Significantly curtailed by the Chinese government.
Sure, is western Europe immune to this backslide?
That is fair, it can be seen as them being in danger. The trans hate in the UK (although not part of the EU per se) is something I always found alarming. So it can change negatively in the future, yeah, but right now and for a good decade or so it hasnāt, and is so far good, which is certainly something to me.
Fascism is sweeping EU sadly, but I view the Chinese state to be fascist too. Granted at this point Iād be hard-pressed to find a country that isnāt.
Why in the world not? You havenāt given any analysis for why things are the way they are, you mostly just recounted historical events while admitting ignorance to the status of struggle in socialist countries.
Because I havenāt seen anything that communicates otherwise to me. You may say that thereās an openly trans celeb (whoās censored), or that younger generations are more progressive, but that really doesnāt communicate that legal change or progress is imminent to me.
Also even if it does happen within my lifetime Iād be really old by then (or so I would expect), which makes me indifferent to it on a personal level.
I think analysis on why things are the way they are is dependent on history. And yeah, I donāt know much about queer activism in socialist countries. Is that supposed to make me feel like progress is imminent? Because it doesnāt, as I said, I havenāt seen anything that communicates that to me.
In short, my criticism with your thought process is that it is metaphysical and idealist, rather than dialectical and materialist. Metaphysical because you view things in a vacuum and as static categories, rather than ever-evolving processes, and idealist because you view the world on the basis of ideas being prior to material conditions, and not material conditions being prior.
Iām familiar with the basic idea of diamat. I think while it can be a useful model, I donāt believe it is necessarily applicable everywhere; Iām inclined to believe some things just stay the way they are (āstaticā, yes). Youāre forcing a model that is believed in by socialists on someone that doesnāt believe in said model or even the broader ideology.
Mm, and no, I donāt view things in a vacuum, most/many things are interconnected, but I donāt think it is necessarily true that everything always has to be. Iād have to look into the real-world evidence behind diamat to consider whether or not it is empirically accurate (and to what extent it is), and to figure out to what extent the model can be used, where and how, in order to determine if I personally believe in itā but this would wind up being a completely separate endeavor.
We can hold countries accountable without treating it illogically, like a race.
So how does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks in queer rights look like to you?
Nope, framing social progress as a process, rather than something static, means looking at the fact that countries that are ahead presently are behind what will be considered acceptable in the future, and countries that are behind now are often ahead of where they were in the past. There is nothing special about this present moment
This comes off as you āequalizingā everything globally to a āneutralā in every case, which feels very detached and inappropriate to me. Itās always a process everywhere, current protections or lack thereof donāt get mention.
The existing protections in places I do consider to be special in this moment.
This is how I know you arenāt really reading what I say. I have said everything is a process. Understanding that nothing is static doesnāt mean everything bad doesnāt matter or that nothing good matters. You framed existing social progress in, say, China as bad when it is better than it was in the past and is continuing to get better and better.
Yeah but then why do you only give lip to the west, when it comes to queer rights and not also socialist countries?
Because there would be no point in this current conversation?
There would be a point to me in that it would show me that you donāt actually have a wholly uncritical and unilaterally accepting opinion of China and can actually see their flaws.
If youāre just someone who views country X as idyllic and are always going to be in favour of country X no matter what flaws exist and what it does, and you cant ever honestly account for them, then Iām highly unlikely to give any real weight to anything you say about country X. It comes off as zealotry, nothing but a zealotās zeal.
Not saying you are, but you have only given me overwhelming evidence for this through our conversations so far.
I also didnāt say an account on their flaws has to be āequalā. Youāve written countless answers of such a length that unilaterally describe the pros of the country, one mere response of the same length owing to the opposite wouldnāt come anywhere near to making it equal.
Iāll beg to differ on Cuba not being an exception, you didnt name any other current socialist countries w similar laws.
I donāt really buy into the whole process framework you have, or what Iāve understood of it so far, anyway.
This is why I keep stressing that nothing is static, and that everything is moving through time, as a process. Even countries that appear to be doing the same thing for a long period of time are undergoing constant buildup to result in change.
I know, youāve said that. I donāt feel it, though. I donāt feel like the bulk of conservative areas are going to become progressive. I donāt mean just China or socialist countries right now though.
Consider the Muslim-majority parts of the middle east, Africa, and Asia. Do you believe theyāre going to have a queer liberation any time soon? The stronghold that religion has on these places is far more deeply entrenched than Christianity does in their western counterparts. Expecting them to progress for gay rights even by the end of the century is optimistic, I would assume. If you have reasoning otherwise, Iām open to hearing it.
Parts of the Islamic world have somehow managed to allow for transgender rights (Iran, Pakistan), but that is the extent of it.
And why did those ideas come to be? What material conditions were present that allowed some ideas to propogate and others to be ignored?
This may just be a stereotype, but it is said that urbanization and the rise of cities and city culture is associated with things such as progressivism and secularism; the rural counterparts to a countryās populace is typically more conservative.
If thatās the direction you want to goā¦ perhaps it was the steam engine and the industrial revolution that played into this or amplified it.
It may also have to do with the change of economic structure such that the church was no longer the direct source of provision and governance and therefore that made contradicting the church less detrimental to survival, thus allowing for secularism to be realistically feasible. This is a hunch, though. Iām not well-read on history, especially the farther back we go, and this is already around 17th century, I think.
I want to preface this response by saying that I think, by responding to many individual statements, we have entirely lost the thread. I hope you wonāt find this dismissive, but I assure you (as much as you believe by my word to be worth) that I have carefully read your comments in their entirety before writing this. I hope you can agree to abandoning the āquote -> replyā format, in the hopes of re-centering this conversation along a single thread. If you wish to pivot to a different direction, my request is that we pivot to a new, singular direction of focus.
The downside, of course, is that I deliberately am not going to answer all of the points you brought up, including allegations that the CPC is censoring trans celebrities (they arenāt, some localities are more socially conservative than others while the CPC itself is passively pro-LGBTQIA+), etc. Again, if you wish to revisit a topic, my request is that we pivot to it entirely, I will not hide from a subject.
With that said, I believe the most important topic of discussion is world outlook. I have affirmatively taken the side of dialectical materialism, and I believe you have not, or not fully. This is what I would like to investigate.
Hereās where I believe we agree:
The progress of queer rights is an absolute positive, and must be progressed even more in every country on Earth.
Capitalism is not a good system.
The superstructure of society has an impact on how people think.
With that, I need to explain the universality of dialectical materialism, and why accepting it as the correct method of analysis and world outlook is critical to any genuine critique of socialist countries. I generally am more comfortable criticizing socialist countries with comrades also using dialectical materialism, because dialectical materialism is the basis of any sound, logical critique.
These are bold statements, but they have merit.
Dialectical materialism is both materialist in outlook and dialectical in method.
Materialism
Materialism, simply put, is the outlook that all ideas come from our material conditions and lived experience. This is critical, because you bring up the urban/rural divide. This isnāt merely a locational difference, but a class difference. Urban centers have more proletarian production, while rural areas are more agrarian. This is why the peasantry is associated with individualism as a class outlook, and why the proletariat is more collectivist. This also corresponds to religion, the proletariat is more secular and the peasantry more religious.
Religion is idealist, the counterpart to materialism. The important part here is that religion is part of the superstructure, which is created by and reinforces the base, the mode of production and distribution. Religion rises and falls based on how useful it is to maintaining the ruling classes, in proletarian society the means by which the ruling class enforces its cultural hegemony swaps from religion more to schooling.
The old forms of culture do not disappear when transitioning to a new society, they mold and fit the new form and slowly die away. They are subsumed by the new. Religion in the west is largely vestigial, and remains stronger in the US due to its status as a settler-colony. Muslim countries are also gradually becoming more secular as they develop, and proletarianization increases, though this process is depressed by imperialism, which traps countries at certain levels of development by sucking up all of the surplus that could be used to develop the country. Ie, they keep what they need to maintain themselves, but imperialist countries take what they need to increase production and infrastructure.
To summarize, religion isnāt the dominant factor, but a subordinate tool by which the ruling classes dominate society and eminate their ideas and ways of thinking.
Dialectics
Dialectics is the opposite of metaphysics. Rather than existing in a static world, the world is always changing at a microscopic level. Using your own example, secularization is rising in Muslim countries as access to technology and information increases, as production becomes more proletarian and less agrarian, and more. Things are absolutely not the same as they were a century ago, even if some things appear similar, quantitative buildup results in qualitative developments.
All change happens through contradiction, between two opposing tendencies, the rising and the dying away. When you walk, your feet push on the ground and the ground pushes you away. When capitalism overtook feudalism, it did so with the industrial revolution and the rise of the bourgeoisie, who subsumed after overthrowing the aristocracy. This did not happen as static snapshots, by simple chance, but instead as the capitalist class rose from excess production of agriculture, leading to a nascent class of merchants and guilds, which compelled the development of industry and the proletariat.
Conclusion
It doesnāt matter whether you personally believe in dialectical materialism or not, just like it doesnāt matter if you believe in physics or not. Dialectical materialism accurately explains change and development and helps us analyze problems effectively, centering the working classes.
The importance of dialectical materialism to our discussion is your belief that culture is the determining factor of thought, and not the mode of production that creates culture. We believe and view the world based on our class outlooks, how we interact with the world. Men make their own history, but not under conditions of our choosing.
Your insistence that religion exists outside the mode of production, independent of it, puts religion in a vacuum as a static, unchanging entity outside of history. Itās an idealist and metaphysical viewpoint, and by being both idealist and metaphysical it becomes a belief in the supernatural. Even if you consider yourself to be secular, you return unknowingly to supernatural explanation of phenomena that do not accurately describe the world. This is why we need materialist analysis based on class to examine history, historical materialism.
Thatās why diamat is critical to our discussion, which began as a discussion of Marxism vs. Anarchism.
I found it dismissive when you said it didnāt matter what I believed. You may assert that, though, and the accuracy of dialectical materialism. Brute force assertions will not make me believe something is true or accurate, though I guess that doesnāt matter to you. But at that point, why even bother conversing with me?
I am not walking forward with the assumption that dialectical materialism is true or accurate.
Assuming you still care to hear the rest of what I say:
Physics is an entire field of study, it is not just one model. Rejecting or being skeptical of a theory within a field of study is not absurd as youāre trying to make it sound; models have been improved upon and expanded in science precisely because of this. Einstein gave us an improved model of gravity that was more accurate after Newtonās. Similarly, I am not rejecting sociology in its entirety when I am skeptical of dialectical materialism. Sociology is not reducible to dialectical materialism, and historical/sociological analysis is entirely possible without dialectical materialism.
Iām trying to keep the discussion polite and respectful, and I try not to dismiss your beliefs like that. Please reciprocate that. I donāt want this to become an abrasive thing, if the discussion canāt happen without being abrasive, Iād rather we just stopped.
Dogma is something I am opposed to, and being dogmatic about something is the fastest way to turn me off from something. I personally view dialectical materialism as having explanatory potential (despite not being the only explanation), and there were points in your answer that caught my interest prior to that.
The rest of my thoughts are as follows.
Iāve saved my comments, Iāll pivot to them individually afterwards.
This is why the peasantry is associated with individualism as a class outlook, and why the proletariat is more collectivist.
Uhmā¦ not the other way around? Isnāt the peasantry collectivist?
How does the base create religion? If you have any (brief) readings on the matter, I might be willing to read a bit on that specific subject. Also, you say the hegemony switches from religion to schooling ā Iām a bit confused here as isnāt destroying education the aim of fascism? Like in America, especially as of late.
The old forms of culture do not disappear when transitioning to a new society, they mold and fit the new form and slowly die away. They are subsumed by the new.
Examples and/or resources on this would be appreciated.
You mention proletarianization, is this about the population becoming more white collar or blue collar in terms of employment? Iāve gotten conflicting definitions for the term(s). āāWorking classāā used to be manual labourers but thatās a smaller portion of the population now as white collar jobs go up, I think.
this process is depressed by imperialism, which traps countries at certain levels of development by sucking up all of the surplus that could be used to develop the country. Ie, they keep what they need to maintain themselves, but imperialist countries take what they need to increase production and infrastructure.
I didnāt get this part.
Itās true that secularization is rising in Muslim countries. I suppose itās the combination of the fact that this is not yet deeply reflected in the law in most of these countries, and the fact that things such as gay rights are at the far edge of the process, such that the connections to religion would have to become incredibly loose for those to come about, that Iāve assumed them to be essentially static since itās not happening before I get old (if not my life). Just reads the same to me, though of course it can eventually happen down the line. I canāt personally be concerned with that though. Itās like watching hair grow, itās not actually static but if you take that process and make it incredibly slower, it feels that way.
Iām not entirely convinced that production is more significant than culture in determining thought yet
Even if you consider yourself to be secular, you return unknowingly to supernatural explanation of phenomena that do not accurately describe the world.
Not knowing the why doesnāt mean I have a belief in the supernatural. You can know (or believe) that something is, even if you do not understand why or how. I know rocket science and quantum mechanics exist, even though I donāt know why or what they entail. This doesnāt mean I believe in the supernatural.
First off, I apologize if I came off as abrasive. This was not my intention. When I say that dialectical materialism doesnāt care if you believe in it or not, I mean it in the same way gravity doesnāt care if we understand how it works or not. It isnāt to dismiss you, I personally do care about what you believe in that I hope to create a comrade out of this conversation, or at least grant you new perspective. My point is that the utility of the dialectical materialist outlook as it far surpasses any other world outlook thus far stands on its own, whether or not individuals use it.
First, dialectical materialism is not a āmodel.ā Materialism is a world outlook, and dialectics is a way of applying materialism, to accurately explain change. Materialism is superior to idealism, in much the same way dialectics is superior to metaphysics.
Dialectical materialists reject dogmatism, as dogmatism is more characteristic of metaphysics, as dogmatism seeks eternal truths while dialectical materialism itself understands that the world is constantly changing, new things are arising all the time and old things are dying away. Thatās why I stress that dialectical materialism isnāt a model, it isnāt a set of eternal truths about the world but instead an outlook on what truths can be observed in the world.
As for the peasantry, if we are to be fully correct, they would best be described as ācommunitarianā rather than individualist. Think of a group of fully distinct items as individualist, loosely connected cells which themselves are tight-knit as communitarian, and one full interconnected system as collectivist. The petite bourgeoisie are more individualist than the peasantry, and the old yeomanry (farmers that owned and toiled their own land, rather than renting from feudal Lords) were the original white settlers in the US Empire as they killed off the natives, which would be closer to the petite bourgeoisie than the peasantry found in feudal systems.
As for the base creating religion, religion arose as a means by which to justify feudalism and slave societies, as an idealist world outlook. The bourgeoisie pushed early, vulgar materialism as a way to cement their own rule, but oppose dialectics as it proves their rule is not in fact permanent. As for further reading, Gramsciās The Study of Philosophy and of Historical Materialism is pretty good, though can be dense if you arenāt familiar with Marxism that much.
In short, the ways we live and the conditions by which we exist, most critically how we produce what we need to live and how we distribute it, affects how we think, and the ruling classes of a given society create a state and structures by which to eminate ruling class ideology. Religion was largely the means by which this was accomplished in feudal and slave eras.
As for fascism in the US, itās a dying empire. The schooling in the US Empire overwhelmingly creates neoliberalism. Fascism itself is colonialism turned inward as neocolonialism and imperialism falter, itās a violent means by which to retain bourgeois rule. The faltering education system is faltering along with all of Statesian society, infrastructure, etc.
As for how the old is subsumed into the new, religion still exists even though feudalism has largely died out. What remains of the old, powerful clergy is that which support bourgeois property rights, but this has also come with a great secularization of society. The new mode of production does not erase all of past society, the new, rising identity folds aspects of the old into it and moves forward. This is essentially a dialectical development.
Regarding proletarianization, donāt think āblue collar and white collar,ā think those who sell their labor-power for a wage to exist. The working classes currently are slaves, of which there are few, the peasantry, who toil the lands of their lords and pay rent in the form of that which they grow and keep the rest, and the proletariat, which far outnumbers the rest. There are proletarian and slave agricultural workers, working in agriculture does not make one a peasant.
As for imperialism depressing development, imagine you have imperialist country A, imperialized country B, amount of annual production needed to maintain current levels 10, and total annual output 20. If imperialist countries take ~8-11 of the 20, then production cannot develop into higher levels, itās either a slow crawl forward, stagnated, or even decaying. Countries need surplus product to direct towards improving outputs to make more and more and redirect that surplus to make more and more and more, but if you only keep what you need to sustain yourself and not grow then youāll never grow.
As for slow change appearing static, often times we can cognize that the change isnāt actually static while treating it analytically as though it is, due to how it appears. This is the key, fundamental mistake of metaphysics, and why dialectics surpassed it.
Production isnāt necessarily more important than culture, itās that culture is a product of how people live and produce, therefore production is primary, not secondary. Culture is secondary, and as such changes quite dramatically as modes of production change, though not on absolute terms and not all at once.
As for why I said you fell into supernatural thought, I did not mean that because you didnāt know why. I meant it because you treated culture as outside of the material, as coming before matter. Culture has to come from the concrete, from the real world, whether itās religious or not, because we all exist in the world and these senses and materials create our thoughts. For culture to be independent and outside of production entirely, it would have to be universal and supernatural, as you are not explaining culture via materialist basis. If it isnāt based on concrete reality, then it is effectively outside it.
This is why I linked the other primers on dialectical materialism. They really should be able to help.
I gave you the source, and Iām always interested in a good discussion. I just feel that this conversation has generally been a bit imbalanced, thatās all. It seems like youāre coming from this with a permanent skepticism that even light googling can help solve.
That is fair. I donāt have sources ready on me to provide on these topics, Iād have to look for them first. I guess when Iām not referring to sources/facts etc I am usually coming from less of a position of ādemonstrating why X is trueā and more of āthis is what I know and Iām just trying to pull what information you haveā, if that makes sense.
Regarding the point on queer rights I wanted to go over:
I listed some significant progress for queer rights earlier but it seems like you just glossed over them as being ājust some legal benefitsā, because discrimination still exists?
Iād like to ask you:
Are these things not significant?
I view them as life-changing protections. Please donāt shrug them off as if they are nothing. These are massive, massive improvements in quality of life, and they deserve to be acknowledged as such.
I cannot see you as being truly concerned for queer populations if these things just evoke a āmeh, whateverā from you.
The phenomenon that younger generations are more progressive is more-or-less universally applicable, it isnt unique to China. While it is true that discrimination sadly occurs everywhere, it is significantly lower in Scandinavia. Compare any of those countries on Equaldex.com to China and you can see an in-depth breakdown of just how far ahead they are.
Is significantly less discrimination a good thing to you? Or does it not matter because itās not completely gone yet, and having more discrimination is thus preferable?
Furthermore, you said that socialist countries do better in queer rights than peer capitalist countries, when this is demonstrably false. Compare Thailand and Taiwan to China. Both perform better in terms of queer rights than China, but neither are socialist.
Incidentally I have actually read the prolewikiās entry on queer rights in socialist countries. I have read everything they cover on queer issues. There is a glaringly unbalanced coverage of queer issues, with everything being clearly cherry-picked. Not a single one of the countriesā flaws or setbacks are mentioned, none of the lacking protections or rights are mentioned. It came off as very dishonest to me and was a big part of my reason to not engage with that wiki again. I have already seen these countries through a reliable source that documents queer rights that I prefer to use (equaldex).
It strikes me as strange that any real negative or lack in China/socialist countries will always be downplayed and glossed over at best and simply not covered at all at worst. I wonder if this is just a Marxist-Leninist tendency or if it is shared by all Communists.
I will grant that free GAC in the past was amazing, and Cuba. Thereās nothing really to say wrt to queer rights in Cuba as itās already ideal in that regard, but Cuba is very much the exception in currently socialist countries (not a single of the other countries today are anything like it in that regard).
I am not āpinkwashedā, I routinely criticize the west and imperialism myself. I criticize everything.
Though itās weird, isnāt pinkwashing basically a subtype of brainwashing? I thought you didnāt believe in ābrainwashingā, in favour of moral licensing, according to your guide.
For clarity, Iām pansexual myself. I view improvements in the queer struggle absolutely positively. The problems I took with your positions were as follows:
You overstated the gap between western countries and existing socialist states, understating problems with western countries and overstating problems with socialist countries
You tried to tie socialism to an erasure of queer rights, despite the fact that socialist countries have all gradually been improving in queer rights over time, especially compared to what was in place previously
The problem here is that youāre treating me not as a discussion partner, but as a search engine. It doesnāt come across as you trying to convince me, or come to a better understanding together through dialogue, it feels one-sided and imbalanced. I feel like this is why some topics end up going nowhere despite several comments passing by.
I never brushed them off as though they were nothing, I highlighted that they arenāt as solid as you claim, and are far more recent. China is 1-2 decades behind the west when it comes to LGBTQIA+ rights, not several centuries or anything, yet you frame it as though China is getting worse over time and the west is getting better while the opposite is true.
This is the kind of frankly bad-faith bullshit youāve been stating that makes it abundantly clear from my perspective that you donāt seem to care at all about what I say, but instead are fishing for āgotchas.ā Iāll bold this so itās clear: Less discrimination is better, obviously. Overstating the gap between countries when it comes to social rights in order to push a narrative that this gap is due to failings on the part of the country lagging behind is illogical and ignores the reality of how social change comes to be, and undermines the ongoing efforts of queer activists in socialist countries.
In other words, youāre throwing queer advocates under the bus to give yourself an excuse to discredit their real achievements, both up until now and in the near future.
Cherry picking. Throughout the Soviet Unionās existence, it was ahead of the west when it comes to queer rights. Cuba is far ahead of their peers, and even far ahead of the west. China is ahead of their peers on average.
What youāre doing is cherry picking, though. Prolewiki frames social progress as a process, not as a snapshot. In doing so, itās documenting the progressive movements in socialist countries and what struggles they face, it doesnāt try to document a list of whatās presently there because history is not a set of disconnected snapshots but a process. Both are necessary, having a good view of existing conditions while analyzing trends, and Equaldex lacks that historical background analysis and analysis of trends. This is what you deliberately are choosing to ignore, and what I have pointed out this entire time.
The negatives are not downplayed or glossed-over, what youāre missing is contextual analysis and analysis of historical progression, which Prolewiki highlights. This is true of all communists, dialectical materialism overcame vulgar materialism and idealism and as such represents the basis of how we understand the world. Not as disconnected, isolated snapshots, but as ever-connected trends and processes.
Cuba is not an exception, and queer rights in Cuba are not perfect. In 100 years, we will look at Cuban queer rights presently as extremely backward and lacking. What Cuba is is progressive as it exists compared to itself in the past, and as compared to western countries which are seeing backslides. China is catching up to Cuba, and is more progressive socially than it was in the past. If trends continue, it will overtake the west in this respect sometime this century, probably closer to now than the turn of the century (and not just catch up to where the west is today, but surpass where the west will be in the future).
Youāre looking at the values you have today as though these were correct ideas all along, and we had to wait until right this moment to discover them. This is false. In 100 years, both of our views will likely be seen as progressive for our time and conditions, but reactionary as compared to standards of the future. This doesnāt happen evenly across a global standard, but also has national variance as well as development proceeds at different rates, allowing for greater or lesser pressure from queer liberation struggles.
You were downplaying Scandinavian imperialism just a few comments ago, and you said Cuba is āperfectā with regards to queer rights. Cuba is not perfect, though itās absolutely a great standard for contemporary conditions. Perfection is far away and perhaps impossible, whatās important is that we continue to progress, not regress.
Pinkwashing isnāt brainwashing, itās a form of licensing. Ie, Zionists telling queer people that itās hypocritical to support Hamas and Palestinian liberation over Israel due to Israelās ābetter queer rightsā (which is honestly up for debate given how they treat queer Palestinians, ie with genocide).
I was certainly harsh this comment, but I really need you to understand the problem with how you view social progress as a snapshot and not as an ongoing process. If you want to read more about queer activism as it relates to anti-imperialism and socialism, read Lavender & Red by Leslie Feinberg.
I want to flip this conversation around. What is the underlying reason why queer rights are where they are in the west, and why are they where they are in socialist countries right this second? What direction is social progress moving in in both sets, positive or negative?
I stated the legal protections that exist in the west that do not exist in existing socialist states (sans Cuba). This is not an overstatement, this is fact.
I am not trying to convince you of anything at the moment, just exchanging information. I canāt provide sources for the prior topics we were discussing as that is something Iād have to research prior. For those topics, I canāt do better atm, so if it is unsatisfactory for you, you can always exit. But I donāt think this applies when it comes to queer topics, at least not as much.
I claimed they have certain legal protections. Marriage equality, housing/employee protection, adoption. This is fact, it is not something merely claimed by me.
I didnāt say this. My point was there are factually better laws extant in the west today that donāt exist in modern-day socialist states besides Cuba.
The legal protections I mentioned, again, are all factually true. Allow me to rephrase the part where I said it was āāmiles aheadāā. There are much better laws in place for queer people in the west than the socialist countries that exist today, asides from Cuba.
However, I will say that I am inclined to believe that the parity is a failure on part of the country. Whose else is it, do we just not hold countries accountable, now? Or is everything just always explained as being the Westās fault? That seems illogical to me.
Does a framing of social progress as a process mean that you overlook flaws and negatives and whatās missing?
How can you even begin to honestly document the struggles faced when you havenāt even mentioned the fact that they donāt have some of the most significant rights.
Then why can only one be seen to the total omission of the other? You criticize Equaldex for lacking one but not Prolewiki for lacking the other.
Furthermore, Prolewiki does NOT have a good view of existing conditions. I do not take issue with trend analysis. Go for it! I take issue with not calling a spade a spade and ignoring what is in the here and now altogether. That is not something that will be read as logical to me.
Just because itās a process, in our current account of things, we are going to skip over whatās missing and painful right now? How can you even work towards whatās missing if you donāt even mention āāI donāt have Xāā?
This is as absurd to me as hearing someone trying to document how economic inequality has changed over time without even bothering to mention the facts of what exactly is wrong right now. Lets not even mention the problem of housing, the wage gap by race and gender, unemployment, etc, because itās a process! Itās not a snapshot!
To be clear: this is not intended to be inflammatory, but I am trying to convey why this kind of view just makes no sense to me.
Benefits: Benefits Drawbacks: āProcessā
This is clearly cherry-picking and unbalanced and if you work like that it doesnāt matter how abysmal a country could be in theory because the drawbacks will always be reframed as a process while you only really account for the benefits, resulting in a distorted picture and account of the country.
Also, another counterpoint would be, how come you donāt call the problems in the west āa processā too, then? The drawbacks are just process when looking at socialism, but the west? You donāt seem to have an issue with calling their drawbacks for what they are, drawbacks, without calling it āprocessā there. Seems to be inconsistent to me.
And yet you have never stopped to acknowledge them or give them their due weight. You write one or two sentences, at the most, on how China is not perfect in the most general and nebulous of terms, but that is all one gets, before focusing the entirety of your responses on why China is doing well.
How about you give me an equally lengthy answer on the areas where China is performing poorly, and not being up to the mark where it should, flaws in the government, problems faced by people living there today, things like that? Can you actually do that?
Cuba is absolutely the exception in currently existing socialist countries, this is fact. Name one other socialist country today that has legalized gay marriageā or any of the other legal protections I mentioned earlier. There isnāt one.
I didnāt say it was āperfectā. I said it was ideal and there wasnt anything to say about it to critique it, within the context of our conversation (i.e. a comparison between queer rights under socialist and non-socialist countries). Compared to the non-socialist countries with progressive laws, Cuba isnāt doing noticeably worse in this regard to warrant discussion.
Wasnāt downplaying, I asked, because Iād never heard of Scandinavian imperialism before; and ceded the point (for the purposes of the discussion) when given evidence. As for Cuba, didnāt call it perfect, that is your wording, not mine.
On the why behind queer rights in the west: Iāll preface by saying this is speculative and Iāve never thought about the why much before, believing most countries just remain the way they are for the most part.
I think that secularism and other thought emerging from the enlightenment era played a role in forming the bedrock where queer rights would be discussed more openly.
In the US specifically, in the 70ās, the stonewall riots and queer lobbying lead to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder.
I think that the shift of focus in favour of individualism replacing traditional family values (even if far from completely, I am aware MAGAts and conservative and/or christians make up a significant portion of the US) allows more space for gay liberation. Though to be clear I am not saying the US is ideal for gay people, it is just an example. West Europe is less conservative and affirming (likely Scandinavia being the best in this regard).
Collectivist cultures are inherently less likely to be able to give room to such things coming about because they want everyone to conform to the same norm, which is always going to be heterosexuality (if not within a traditional marriage). Gay people donāt come out to their parents in Asia (mostly collectivist cultures) because of the emphasis on āfurthering the parentsā bloodlineā (amongst beliefs that it is unnatural and all sorts of other bigotry, of course).
It has been my idea that weāve had a lot of activists over the last century (possibly prior as well) in the west. Perhaps due to language barriers I canāt say I have personally heard enough to say the same about the east, though I have seen japanese activists pushing for this for a while the last year or so.
āSocial progressā is too broad a term for me to be able to assess just like that, but specifically in the context of queer rights specifically I am more or less content with where theyāre at in West Europe; they are declining sharply in the US under Trump, though.
I donāt personally see it improving in socialist countries in a significant way any time soon.
Though I wouldnāt be surprised if it happened before the turn of the century (itād be about goddamn time), I just wouldnāt personally care since itās not happening in my lifetime. I canāt envision myself living there because itās not happening in time. If itād happen sooner, I could, but thatās just not realistic.
We can hold countries accountable without treating it illogically, like a race. Social progress isnāt a race, itās something that is built over time, and largely depends on changing the views of a great number of people at a time, not just formal, legal changes.
Nope, framing social progress as a process, rather than something static, means looking at the fact that countries that are ahead presently are behind what will be considered acceptable in the future, and countries that are behind now are often ahead of where they were in the past. There is nothing special about this present moment, so we need to look at the positive, progressive movements, which factually exist and are making changes in socialist countries.
This is how I know you arenāt really reading what I say. I have said everything is a process. Understanding that nothing is static doesnāt mean everything bad doesnāt matter or that nothing good matters. You framed existing social progress in, say, China as bad when it is better than it was in the past and is continuing to get better and better. Without the knowledge of the latter, you make it seem as though itās a systemic problem and not something actively being worked on.
The fact that you think I donāt see social progress/regress in the west as a process is just proof that you arenāt reading what Iām saying, because Iāve said very clearly that everything is a process, repeatedly.
Because there would be no point in this current conversation? Why should an overview of Chinaās negatives be equal to a short overview of their positives? China has problems, but unlike the west the vast majority of them are being actively worked on and improving.
Cuba is faster than other socialist countries. It is not an exception, it just arrived there faster, and is continuing to progress. That isnāt an exception when the broader trend is the same.
Either way, onto the questions! This is the only part of the convo where I think there will be any progress.
This is why I keep stressing that nothing is static, and that everything is moving through time, as a process. Development happens from quantitative buildups turning into qualitative leaps. Even countries that appear to be doing the same thing for a long period of time are undergoing constant buildup to result in change.
And why did those ideas come to be? What material conditions were present that allowed some ideas to propogate and others to be ignored?
Sure. Why didnāt this happen in the 1870s, or 1770s? Gay people existed back then, what made it possible after the Stonewall riots?
Why is there a shift towards individualism?
This is just vibes. Plenty of ācollectivist culturesā do have queer rights comparable to the west. It sounds like youāre focusing extremely hard on ideas, without at all looking at the base, the mode of production and distribution, economic conditions, and how that develops and changes. Westerners also care about furthering bloodlines.
Why have there been a lot of activists in the west? Why have you not been paying attention to activists in, say, China? One of Chinaās top celebrities is openly trans.
Sure, is western Europe immune to this backslide? Parties like the AFD are rising in popularity and fascism is sweeping Europe as well, seems to me like they may be in danger too.
Why in the world not? You havenāt given any analysis for why things are the way they are, you mostly just recounted historical events while admitting ignorance to the status of struggle in socialist countries. This is why this entire time I have been trying to get you to think about how social progress actually works at a human level, how it spreads and where it comes from.
Again, why is it not realistic? It seems that within our lifetimes China is likely going to surpass the west when it comes to social progress. You have to learn how and why progress happens to begin with to extrapolate how it changes in the future.
In short, my criticism with your thought process is that it is metaphysical and idealist, rather than dialectical and materialist. Metaphysical because you view things in a vacuum and as static categories, rather than ever-evolving processes, and idealist because you view the world on the basis of ideas being prior to material conditions, and not material conditions being prior. This circles back to me critique of anarchism in the first place, which you assured me did not violate historical materialism, but your thought process thus far has absolutely been metaphysical and idealist.
I wrote a small post on what dialectical materialism is, or you can check Prolewikiās entry on dialectical materialism. Both would be good for you to check out. Without a strong understanding of the reality of change, progress, and development, itās incredibly easy to fall into analytical pitfalls like youāve been doing.
I had to split my comment in two because it became too large for Lemmy to send in one go.
Continuing:
In the 1700ās or 1800ās, there were other human rights issues prevalent that affected more people. Black people were still enslaved and women didnāt have the right to vote (and work, I think). I suppose secularization hadnāt deepened as much yet, andā¦ the generation of people growing up closely under church were still around.
From what I know the social movement took a sharp turn upwards in favour of gay rights after the stonewall riots, but I donāt know the specifics. As for the lobbying, it is said that they obstructed APA meetings until their demands were met. I donāt know if that is true.
I think that individualism is linked with secularization (because it breaks down church conceptions of ideas such as making and maintaining family a primary commitment, perhaps especially for women), which itself is linked with education. We have seen growing literacy rates for a while now.
Individualism is also said to be a by-product of capitalism, though I donāt personally know about how that works.
Then you should have no problem naming them for me.
Westerners donāt care about furthering their bloodlines anywhere near on the same scale as Asians on average. Youāre right in that this is vibes (I donāt have literal stats on me), but this is not really something that is conspiratorial or contested.
Because I dont really feel like the economic mode of production necessarily leads to a change in social attitudes, Iām still inclined to think many/most countries remain more or less the same as they are (I know you consider them to not be static). They may walk around with iphones and cars today when they didnāt the last century but they still carry the same conservative attitudes they did last century.
I will bring the example of the Arab, African, or Asian Muslim world again here (I am aware that not the entirety of these diasporas are Muslim, I am specifically referring to the parts that are); I donāt see these countries becoming gay affirming even if the economic mode of production over there changed. Hell, Iād go as far as to say that even China would be much more likely to than them.
Of course, as explained earlier, I still see that as being a very distant thing for China, for similar reasons, but the significant distinction in my opinion is that there isnāt really a stronghold of religion on the Chinese population in the same way that Islam is. Islam is overwhelmingly homophobic, and while there are traditions in Buddhism (and perhaps Confucianism and Taoism, Iām not 100% on Chinese demographics) that are homophobic, itās nowhere near the same (i.e. Islamic scripture commands the stoning of gay men).
I mean Iāve outlined the reasons I could think of already for the westā rising levels of education (and higher education), secularism, individualism, urbanization, the steam engine. Though these apply to China too (apart from individualismā Iām not sure about literacy and higher education though).
I never had an interest in China. I only started discussing it at all this year when I started looking into communism a while back. But apart from that I already said it may be due to the language barrier, and well, queer activism in china has never come up anywhere asides from our conversations (in my life).
From your link, first paragraph:
Significantly curtailed by the Chinese government.
That is fair, it can be seen as them being in danger. The trans hate in the UK (although not part of the EU per se) is something I always found alarming. So it can change negatively in the future, yeah, but right now and for a good decade or so it hasnāt, and is so far good, which is certainly something to me.
Fascism is sweeping EU sadly, but I view the Chinese state to be fascist too. Granted at this point Iād be hard-pressed to find a country that isnāt.
Because I havenāt seen anything that communicates otherwise to me. You may say that thereās an openly trans celeb (whoās censored), or that younger generations are more progressive, but that really doesnāt communicate that legal change or progress is imminent to me.
Also even if it does happen within my lifetime Iād be really old by then (or so I would expect), which makes me indifferent to it on a personal level.
I think analysis on why things are the way they are is dependent on history. And yeah, I donāt know much about queer activism in socialist countries. Is that supposed to make me feel like progress is imminent? Because it doesnāt, as I said, I havenāt seen anything that communicates that to me.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
Iām familiar with the basic idea of diamat. I think while it can be a useful model, I donāt believe it is necessarily applicable everywhere; Iām inclined to believe some things just stay the way they are (āstaticā, yes). Youāre forcing a model that is believed in by socialists on someone that doesnāt believe in said model or even the broader ideology.
Mm, and no, I donāt view things in a vacuum, most/many things are interconnected, but I donāt think it is necessarily true that everything always has to be. Iād have to look into the real-world evidence behind diamat to consider whether or not it is empirically accurate (and to what extent it is), and to figure out to what extent the model can be used, where and how, in order to determine if I personally believe in itā but this would wind up being a completely separate endeavor.
So how does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks in queer rights look like to you?
This comes off as you āequalizingā everything globally to a āneutralā in every case, which feels very detached and inappropriate to me. Itās always a process everywhere, current protections or lack thereof donāt get mention.
The existing protections in places I do consider to be special in this moment.
Yeah but then why do you only give lip to the west, when it comes to queer rights and not also socialist countries?
There would be a point to me in that it would show me that you donāt actually have a wholly uncritical and unilaterally accepting opinion of China and can actually see their flaws.
If youāre just someone who views country X as idyllic and are always going to be in favour of country X no matter what flaws exist and what it does, and you cant ever honestly account for them, then Iām highly unlikely to give any real weight to anything you say about country X. It comes off as zealotry, nothing but a zealotās zeal.
Not saying you are, but you have only given me overwhelming evidence for this through our conversations so far.
I also didnāt say an account on their flaws has to be āequalā. Youāve written countless answers of such a length that unilaterally describe the pros of the country, one mere response of the same length owing to the opposite wouldnāt come anywhere near to making it equal.
Iāll beg to differ on Cuba not being an exception, you didnt name any other current socialist countries w similar laws.
I donāt really buy into the whole process framework you have, or what Iāve understood of it so far, anyway.
I know, youāve said that. I donāt feel it, though. I donāt feel like the bulk of conservative areas are going to become progressive. I donāt mean just China or socialist countries right now though.
Consider the Muslim-majority parts of the middle east, Africa, and Asia. Do you believe theyāre going to have a queer liberation any time soon? The stronghold that religion has on these places is far more deeply entrenched than Christianity does in their western counterparts. Expecting them to progress for gay rights even by the end of the century is optimistic, I would assume. If you have reasoning otherwise, Iām open to hearing it.
Parts of the Islamic world have somehow managed to allow for transgender rights (Iran, Pakistan), but that is the extent of it.
This may just be a stereotype, but it is said that urbanization and the rise of cities and city culture is associated with things such as progressivism and secularism; the rural counterparts to a countryās populace is typically more conservative.
If thatās the direction you want to goā¦ perhaps it was the steam engine and the industrial revolution that played into this or amplified it.
It may also have to do with the change of economic structure such that the church was no longer the direct source of provision and governance and therefore that made contradicting the church less detrimental to survival, thus allowing for secularism to be realistically feasible. This is a hunch, though. Iām not well-read on history, especially the farther back we go, and this is already around 17th century, I think.
I want to preface this response by saying that I think, by responding to many individual statements, we have entirely lost the thread. I hope you wonāt find this dismissive, but I assure you (as much as you believe by my word to be worth) that I have carefully read your comments in their entirety before writing this. I hope you can agree to abandoning the āquote -> replyā format, in the hopes of re-centering this conversation along a single thread. If you wish to pivot to a different direction, my request is that we pivot to a new, singular direction of focus.
The downside, of course, is that I deliberately am not going to answer all of the points you brought up, including allegations that the CPC is censoring trans celebrities (they arenāt, some localities are more socially conservative than others while the CPC itself is passively pro-LGBTQIA+), etc. Again, if you wish to revisit a topic, my request is that we pivot to it entirely, I will not hide from a subject.
With that said, I believe the most important topic of discussion is world outlook. I have affirmatively taken the side of dialectical materialism, and I believe you have not, or not fully. This is what I would like to investigate.
Hereās where I believe we agree:
The progress of queer rights is an absolute positive, and must be progressed even more in every country on Earth.
Capitalism is not a good system.
The superstructure of society has an impact on how people think.
With that, I need to explain the universality of dialectical materialism, and why accepting it as the correct method of analysis and world outlook is critical to any genuine critique of socialist countries. I generally am more comfortable criticizing socialist countries with comrades also using dialectical materialism, because dialectical materialism is the basis of any sound, logical critique.
These are bold statements, but they have merit.
Dialectical materialism is both materialist in outlook and dialectical in method.
Materialism
Materialism, simply put, is the outlook that all ideas come from our material conditions and lived experience. This is critical, because you bring up the urban/rural divide. This isnāt merely a locational difference, but a class difference. Urban centers have more proletarian production, while rural areas are more agrarian. This is why the peasantry is associated with individualism as a class outlook, and why the proletariat is more collectivist. This also corresponds to religion, the proletariat is more secular and the peasantry more religious.
Religion is idealist, the counterpart to materialism. The important part here is that religion is part of the superstructure, which is created by and reinforces the base, the mode of production and distribution. Religion rises and falls based on how useful it is to maintaining the ruling classes, in proletarian society the means by which the ruling class enforces its cultural hegemony swaps from religion more to schooling.
The old forms of culture do not disappear when transitioning to a new society, they mold and fit the new form and slowly die away. They are subsumed by the new. Religion in the west is largely vestigial, and remains stronger in the US due to its status as a settler-colony. Muslim countries are also gradually becoming more secular as they develop, and proletarianization increases, though this process is depressed by imperialism, which traps countries at certain levels of development by sucking up all of the surplus that could be used to develop the country. Ie, they keep what they need to maintain themselves, but imperialist countries take what they need to increase production and infrastructure.
To summarize, religion isnāt the dominant factor, but a subordinate tool by which the ruling classes dominate society and eminate their ideas and ways of thinking.
Dialectics
Dialectics is the opposite of metaphysics. Rather than existing in a static world, the world is always changing at a microscopic level. Using your own example, secularization is rising in Muslim countries as access to technology and information increases, as production becomes more proletarian and less agrarian, and more. Things are absolutely not the same as they were a century ago, even if some things appear similar, quantitative buildup results in qualitative developments.
All change happens through contradiction, between two opposing tendencies, the rising and the dying away. When you walk, your feet push on the ground and the ground pushes you away. When capitalism overtook feudalism, it did so with the industrial revolution and the rise of the bourgeoisie, who subsumed after overthrowing the aristocracy. This did not happen as static snapshots, by simple chance, but instead as the capitalist class rose from excess production of agriculture, leading to a nascent class of merchants and guilds, which compelled the development of industry and the proletariat.
Conclusion
It doesnāt matter whether you personally believe in dialectical materialism or not, just like it doesnāt matter if you believe in physics or not. Dialectical materialism accurately explains change and development and helps us analyze problems effectively, centering the working classes.
The importance of dialectical materialism to our discussion is your belief that culture is the determining factor of thought, and not the mode of production that creates culture. We believe and view the world based on our class outlooks, how we interact with the world. Men make their own history, but not under conditions of our choosing.
Your insistence that religion exists outside the mode of production, independent of it, puts religion in a vacuum as a static, unchanging entity outside of history. Itās an idealist and metaphysical viewpoint, and by being both idealist and metaphysical it becomes a belief in the supernatural. Even if you consider yourself to be secular, you return unknowingly to supernatural explanation of phenomena that do not accurately describe the world. This is why we need materialist analysis based on class to examine history, historical materialism.
Thatās why diamat is critical to our discussion, which began as a discussion of Marxism vs. Anarchism.
I didnāt find the focusing dismissive.
I found it dismissive when you said it didnāt matter what I believed. You may assert that, though, and the accuracy of dialectical materialism. Brute force assertions will not make me believe something is true or accurate, though I guess that doesnāt matter to you. But at that point, why even bother conversing with me?
I am not walking forward with the assumption that dialectical materialism is true or accurate.
Assuming you still care to hear the rest of what I say:
Physics is an entire field of study, it is not just one model. Rejecting or being skeptical of a theory within a field of study is not absurd as youāre trying to make it sound; models have been improved upon and expanded in science precisely because of this. Einstein gave us an improved model of gravity that was more accurate after Newtonās. Similarly, I am not rejecting sociology in its entirety when I am skeptical of dialectical materialism. Sociology is not reducible to dialectical materialism, and historical/sociological analysis is entirely possible without dialectical materialism.
Iām trying to keep the discussion polite and respectful, and I try not to dismiss your beliefs like that. Please reciprocate that. I donāt want this to become an abrasive thing, if the discussion canāt happen without being abrasive, Iād rather we just stopped.
Dogma is something I am opposed to, and being dogmatic about something is the fastest way to turn me off from something. I personally view dialectical materialism as having explanatory potential (despite not being the only explanation), and there were points in your answer that caught my interest prior to that.
The rest of my thoughts are as follows.
Iāve saved my comments, Iāll pivot to them individually afterwards.
Uhmā¦ not the other way around? Isnāt the peasantry collectivist?
How does the base create religion? If you have any (brief) readings on the matter, I might be willing to read a bit on that specific subject. Also, you say the hegemony switches from religion to schooling ā Iām a bit confused here as isnāt destroying education the aim of fascism? Like in America, especially as of late.
Examples and/or resources on this would be appreciated.
You mention proletarianization, is this about the population becoming more white collar or blue collar in terms of employment? Iāve gotten conflicting definitions for the term(s). āāWorking classāā used to be manual labourers but thatās a smaller portion of the population now as white collar jobs go up, I think.
I didnāt get this part.
Itās true that secularization is rising in Muslim countries. I suppose itās the combination of the fact that this is not yet deeply reflected in the law in most of these countries, and the fact that things such as gay rights are at the far edge of the process, such that the connections to religion would have to become incredibly loose for those to come about, that Iāve assumed them to be essentially static since itās not happening before I get old (if not my life). Just reads the same to me, though of course it can eventually happen down the line. I canāt personally be concerned with that though. Itās like watching hair grow, itās not actually static but if you take that process and make it incredibly slower, it feels that way.
Iām not entirely convinced that production is more significant than culture in determining thought yet
Not knowing the why doesnāt mean I have a belief in the supernatural. You can know (or believe) that something is, even if you do not understand why or how. I know rocket science and quantum mechanics exist, even though I donāt know why or what they entail. This doesnāt mean I believe in the supernatural.
First off, I apologize if I came off as abrasive. This was not my intention. When I say that dialectical materialism doesnāt care if you believe in it or not, I mean it in the same way gravity doesnāt care if we understand how it works or not. It isnāt to dismiss you, I personally do care about what you believe in that I hope to create a comrade out of this conversation, or at least grant you new perspective. My point is that the utility of the dialectical materialist outlook as it far surpasses any other world outlook thus far stands on its own, whether or not individuals use it.
First, dialectical materialism is not a āmodel.ā Materialism is a world outlook, and dialectics is a way of applying materialism, to accurately explain change. Materialism is superior to idealism, in much the same way dialectics is superior to metaphysics.
Dialectical materialists reject dogmatism, as dogmatism is more characteristic of metaphysics, as dogmatism seeks eternal truths while dialectical materialism itself understands that the world is constantly changing, new things are arising all the time and old things are dying away. Thatās why I stress that dialectical materialism isnāt a model, it isnāt a set of eternal truths about the world but instead an outlook on what truths can be observed in the world.
As for the peasantry, if we are to be fully correct, they would best be described as ācommunitarianā rather than individualist. Think of a group of fully distinct items as individualist, loosely connected cells which themselves are tight-knit as communitarian, and one full interconnected system as collectivist. The petite bourgeoisie are more individualist than the peasantry, and the old yeomanry (farmers that owned and toiled their own land, rather than renting from feudal Lords) were the original white settlers in the US Empire as they killed off the natives, which would be closer to the petite bourgeoisie than the peasantry found in feudal systems.
As for the base creating religion, religion arose as a means by which to justify feudalism and slave societies, as an idealist world outlook. The bourgeoisie pushed early, vulgar materialism as a way to cement their own rule, but oppose dialectics as it proves their rule is not in fact permanent. As for further reading, Gramsciās The Study of Philosophy and of Historical Materialism is pretty good, though can be dense if you arenāt familiar with Marxism that much.
In short, the ways we live and the conditions by which we exist, most critically how we produce what we need to live and how we distribute it, affects how we think, and the ruling classes of a given society create a state and structures by which to eminate ruling class ideology. Religion was largely the means by which this was accomplished in feudal and slave eras.
As for fascism in the US, itās a dying empire. The schooling in the US Empire overwhelmingly creates neoliberalism. Fascism itself is colonialism turned inward as neocolonialism and imperialism falter, itās a violent means by which to retain bourgeois rule. The faltering education system is faltering along with all of Statesian society, infrastructure, etc.
As for how the old is subsumed into the new, religion still exists even though feudalism has largely died out. What remains of the old, powerful clergy is that which support bourgeois property rights, but this has also come with a great secularization of society. The new mode of production does not erase all of past society, the new, rising identity folds aspects of the old into it and moves forward. This is essentially a dialectical development.
Regarding proletarianization, donāt think āblue collar and white collar,ā think those who sell their labor-power for a wage to exist. The working classes currently are slaves, of which there are few, the peasantry, who toil the lands of their lords and pay rent in the form of that which they grow and keep the rest, and the proletariat, which far outnumbers the rest. There are proletarian and slave agricultural workers, working in agriculture does not make one a peasant.
As for imperialism depressing development, imagine you have imperialist country A, imperialized country B, amount of annual production needed to maintain current levels 10, and total annual output 20. If imperialist countries take ~8-11 of the 20, then production cannot develop into higher levels, itās either a slow crawl forward, stagnated, or even decaying. Countries need surplus product to direct towards improving outputs to make more and more and redirect that surplus to make more and more and more, but if you only keep what you need to sustain yourself and not grow then youāll never grow.
As for slow change appearing static, often times we can cognize that the change isnāt actually static while treating it analytically as though it is, due to how it appears. This is the key, fundamental mistake of metaphysics, and why dialectics surpassed it.
Production isnāt necessarily more important than culture, itās that culture is a product of how people live and produce, therefore production is primary, not secondary. Culture is secondary, and as such changes quite dramatically as modes of production change, though not on absolute terms and not all at once.
As for why I said you fell into supernatural thought, I did not mean that because you didnāt know why. I meant it because you treated culture as outside of the material, as coming before matter. Culture has to come from the concrete, from the real world, whether itās religious or not, because we all exist in the world and these senses and materials create our thoughts. For culture to be independent and outside of production entirely, it would have to be universal and supernatural, as you are not explaining culture via materialist basis. If it isnāt based on concrete reality, then it is effectively outside it.
This is why I linked the other primers on dialectical materialism. They really should be able to help.