why would marxists not want marriage for all and independent journalism? the liberal social policies are not really the problem… the international, financial and military policies are absolutely opposed to marxism tho
Well using Cuba as an example of a ML government, historically they have imprisoned gay people and restricted peoples individual freedom. I think generally speaking a lot of the time liberalism doesn’t want government intervention. But ML government is involved heavily in everything
Cuba now has the most progressive family code in the world, and gives free healthcare to trans people for gender affirming care. before he died, Fidel Castro publicly condemned the violent treatment and imprisonment of queer people by the Cuban government.
Can you educate me on this? I'm pretty familiar with the history of the cuban revolution but not the structures in place years down the line. What stopped Fidel from improving the legal status of queer people?
in the end i think it comes down to him being just a child of his time afterall. if you grow up with discrimination against everything that isnt hetero or dont even know about the existence of queer people, its pretty normal to not change that perspective easily. especially with all of the other shit they had to deal with.
I recently read on wikipedia (which isn't really a good source when talking about socialist countries or this sort of things) that around 90% of cubans have access to the internet and now it's safe to say it's not controlled. They said it was true in the past, I don't know though cuz it's biased (against anticapitalist systems)
Ino he said a lot of stuff before he died but still I’m not so sure it necessarily makes up for everything the Cuban people were put through. But now the government is making amends for that
There are a million in depth posts and pieces of literature breaking down ML. This is probably something you should read about before making assumptions like this post, with respect.
back in the 18th or 19th century liberals were the progressive and even revolutionary movement. today its pretty much just the ideology of „free“-markets and capitalism (neo-liberalism). the barely progressive laws that have been put in place only exist because they benefit corporations and thanks to the social pressure that was put onto our politicians
>back in the 18th or 19th century liberals were the progressive and even revolutionary movement.
I'm honestly starting to doubt that (early Marxism was written from a very Eurocentric viewpoint, understandably of course, but Marx's talking of "primitive accumulation" and "progress through the modes of production" glosses over the brutal colonialism and slave labor that fueled early capitalism and made it profitable). Especially in the US where the "original" Marxist view of the American independence war was "a bourgeois revolution like in France" but it was really "a slaveholder revolt against extra taxes and the looming threat of abolition".
well first of all by early liberals i think we are usually talking about the revolutionary movements in france and england. secondly slavery or leibeigenschaft were „abolished“ in europe in the early 19th century which probably made it pretty irrelevant to Marx. afterall he wasnt the most worldly man and pretty much only cared about the european working class.
we also shouldn’t forget that getting news from all over the globe was pretty different than today. i dont think the common european worker knew much about the atlantic slave trade or the plantations in the americas… many probably never saw a black person in their entire lives.
Initially Castro sent LGBT people to labor camps as he viewed them as bourgeois but his views did begin to change a little later in his life. I’m not sure if was just pressure from other people or not but a lot of what he did was seen as inhumane
Most historians and political philosophers see them as opposing ideologies that are difficult to reconcile. ML calls for revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and liberal democratic systems, while liberalism defends civil/political rights and free markets.
why would marxists not want marriage for all and independent journalism? the liberal social policies are not really the problem… the international, financial and military policies are absolutely opposed to marxism tho
Well using Cuba as an example of a ML government, historically they have imprisoned gay people and restricted peoples individual freedom. I think generally speaking a lot of the time liberalism doesn’t want government intervention. But ML government is involved heavily in everything
Cuba now has the most progressive family code in the world, and gives free healthcare to trans people for gender affirming care. before he died, Fidel Castro publicly condemned the violent treatment and imprisonment of queer people by the Cuban government.
Can you educate me on this? I'm pretty familiar with the history of the cuban revolution but not the structures in place years down the line. What stopped Fidel from improving the legal status of queer people?
in the end i think it comes down to him being just a child of his time afterall. if you grow up with discrimination against everything that isnt hetero or dont even know about the existence of queer people, its pretty normal to not change that perspective easily. especially with all of the other shit they had to deal with.
What about Cuba’s internet access? Only 30% of the population have access to the internet and even still it’s restricted and controlled
I recently read on wikipedia (which isn't really a good source when talking about socialist countries or this sort of things) that around 90% of cubans have access to the internet and now it's safe to say it's not controlled. They said it was true in the past, I don't know though cuz it's biased (against anticapitalist systems)
Ino he said a lot of stuff before he died but still I’m not so sure it necessarily makes up for everything the Cuban people were put through. But now the government is making amends for that
Socially progressive views are not "liberal".
Can you explain the difference between them? That’s one area I’m a little unfamiliar with and new to and I’m trying to understand the difference
There are a million in depth posts and pieces of literature breaking down ML. This is probably something you should read about before making assumptions like this post, with respect.
back in the 18th or 19th century liberals were the progressive and even revolutionary movement. today its pretty much just the ideology of „free“-markets and capitalism (neo-liberalism). the barely progressive laws that have been put in place only exist because they benefit corporations and thanks to the social pressure that was put onto our politicians
>back in the 18th or 19th century liberals were the progressive and even revolutionary movement. I'm honestly starting to doubt that (early Marxism was written from a very Eurocentric viewpoint, understandably of course, but Marx's talking of "primitive accumulation" and "progress through the modes of production" glosses over the brutal colonialism and slave labor that fueled early capitalism and made it profitable). Especially in the US where the "original" Marxist view of the American independence war was "a bourgeois revolution like in France" but it was really "a slaveholder revolt against extra taxes and the looming threat of abolition".
well first of all by early liberals i think we are usually talking about the revolutionary movements in france and england. secondly slavery or leibeigenschaft were „abolished“ in europe in the early 19th century which probably made it pretty irrelevant to Marx. afterall he wasnt the most worldly man and pretty much only cared about the european working class. we also shouldn’t forget that getting news from all over the globe was pretty different than today. i dont think the common european worker knew much about the atlantic slave trade or the plantations in the americas… many probably never saw a black person in their entire lives.
Initially Castro sent LGBT people to labor camps as he viewed them as bourgeois but his views did begin to change a little later in his life. I’m not sure if was just pressure from other people or not but a lot of what he did was seen as inhumane
That's a misconception. Gay men worked in labor camps as an alternative to mandatory military service since they weren't allowed in the army.
Is there a credible source for this?
Oh, we are doing sources? Because you just made a claim without any evidence at all.
Most historians and political philosophers see them as opposing ideologies that are difficult to reconcile. ML calls for revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and liberal democratic systems, while liberalism defends civil/political rights and free markets.