they were better than the west (amazingly low bar, i know), which is why you still get more women in science in the former eastern bloc, but that was about it.

[–] KelvinSpace@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think part of the problem is that when faced with external threats countries tend to become more conservative. I think like China today the USSR likely did not want to introduce social instability by addressing various social issues. I think Cuba is a great example of how to do things differently.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Addressing social issues reduces social instability, conservative policies and cultural norms only empower the NGOs and intelligence agencies (and intelligence agencies masquerading as NGOs) to find willing informants and collaborators. I don't get it.

[–] KelvinSpace@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

I think in the long term you are correct. However, in the short term social reform can often engender a reactionary backlash that increases social instability. For a weak state that’s on the defensive against global capital, social reform can be seen as unnecessarily risky. That’s especially true if substantial fractions of the party hold socially conservative beliefs themselves. Personally I agree that not addressing these issues directly is a mistake even if I think care has to be taken to education people and create public support for reform.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

The initial error IMO was the Stalinist closure of the Zhenotdel and reversion to the nuclear family as the basis of society